Orissa High Court
Nishikanta Mohanty vs Collector on 6 December, 2023
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.25622 of 2017
Nishikanta Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate
-Versus-
Collector, Bhadrak & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 06.12.2023
03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout,
learned AGA for the State opposite parties.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
eviction notice under Annexue-5 on the grounds stated therein.
3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction
to the opposite parties not to evict him from Plot No.2430, Khata
No.900 in Mouza-Matha Sahi, Bhadrak and instead to take
measures to settle the same in his favour and to allow him to
continue business till creation of the vending zone within the limits
of Bhadrak Municipality meant for the street vendors.
4. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
local Administration has not taken any steps for identification of a
vending zone in order to accommodate the petitioner and other
vendors which is a statutory requirement as per the provisions of
the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of
Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and
while contending so, Mr. Jena refers to a judgment of the Apex
Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Another Vrs.
Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and others decided in Civil
Appeal No.4156-4157 of 2002 and batch matters by judgment
dated 9th September, 2013, wherein, series of directions were issued
for the State Government to consider while dealing with existing
street vendors/hawkers operating across the country and to allow
them to operate till creation of vending zones. Thus, the contention
of Mr. Jena is that any such action against the petitioner, who is
street vendor without compliance of the provisions of the Act is bad
in law.
5. No counter affidavit is filed by the State. However, Mr.
Rout, learned AGA for the State submits that the authorities below
and particularly, opposite party No.1 while confirming the decision
in appeal by order dated 17th November, 2017considered all the
aspects and concluded that the possession of the plot in question
recorded as 'Nayanjori' in the name of Govt. PWD Khata No.900 is
highly objectionable and therefore, the same cannot be settled.
Furthermore, it has been contended that such eviction of the
petitioner is necessary in the larger interest of the general public. Mr.
Rout, learned AGA for the State would further submit that the
petitioner is a street vendor and may approach the local
Administration seeking relocation in the light of the provisions of
the Act and Rules framed thereunder to be accommodated in any
such vending zone created by Bhadrak Municipality.
6. In response to the above, Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that if the Court is inclined, to grant any such
liberty to approach the local authority seeking relocation in any
nearby vending zone and till such time, the same is considered,
there should be interim protection to him as against the impugned
action to follow pursuant to Annexure-1.
7. Gone through the decision in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers
Union (supra) and considering the relevant law in place which is
with regard to the street vendors under the Act, the Court is of the
considered view that if there is any vending zone created in the
meantime by Bhadrak Municipality, liberty should be granted to the
petitioner to make an application for allocation of a space there at
with a decision by opposite party No.1 on the same. In other words,
the Court is of the conclusion that keeping in view the competing
interest and rights of the petitioner as a street vendor, liberty should
be allowed for him to approach opposite party No.1 seeking
relocation in any such vending zone earmarked for the purpose with
a direction in that regard as the same would serve the purpose and
advance the cause of justice.
8. Hence, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the
liberty in favour of the petitioner to move opposite party No.1 with
an application submitted seeking relocation in terms of provisions of
the Act so as to accommodate him in a nearby vending zone, a
decision which shall be taken and exercise concluded in
coordination with Bhadrak Municipality preferably within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and
till such time, to maintain status quo in respect of the schedule plot.
10. A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
11. A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Rout, learned
AGA for the State for its onward intimation to opposite party No.1
for early compliance.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Tudu
