Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Street Vendors Act
The Calcutta High Court has unequivocally stated that the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, is designed to safeguard legitimate vending operations and cannot be invoked to protect unauthorised permanent structures or encroachments on public thoroughfares. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury delivered this ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by the Tangra Dhapa Hawkers Samiti and other hawkers' associations, which had challenged an eviction notice issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC).
The petitioners, representing hawkers operating along Dhapa Road and adjacent areas within the KMC's jurisdiction, contended that vending constituted the sole source of livelihood for their members. They asserted that these activities were protected under the 2014 Act and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The associations argued that the KMC's eviction notice, dated August 3, 2026, was issued without proper notification identifying the specific area as a no-vending zone. They further cited the minutes of a Kolkata Town Vending Committee meeting held on June 27, where it was recorded that while the KMC's market and licence departments possessed a list of no-vending zones, a formal notification for these zones was absent.
Conversely, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharyya, appearing for the KMC, submitted that the municipal action was not aimed at legitimate vending activities. Instead, he clarified that the drive targeted unauthorised structures occupying a public footpath. The KMC presented a report from its Executive Engineer, Borough VII, which detailed a complaint from an apartment owners' association regarding permanent and temporary structures obstructing movement on an existing KMC footpath. The municipal authorities asserted that a subsequent inspection revealed shops and other structures that had been erected without authorisation, in violation of Section 371 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Consequently, the KMC had issued notices under Sections 371 and 516 of the Act, providing the encroachers with 15 days to relocate.
Upon reviewing the submissions, the Court declined to intervene with the municipal action. Justice Basu Chowdhury observed that although the petitioners identified themselves as street vendors, no evidence was presented to the Court demonstrating their status as authorised street vendors or hawkers. The Court noted that the material provided by the KMC indicated that the municipal authorities were seeking to remove encroachments that possessed "some sort of permanency."
Against this backdrop, the Calcutta High Court categorically held that the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, does not extend protection to illegal and unauthorised constructions. The Court further clarified that the petitioners could not seek refuge under the 2014 Act to shield unauthorised construction or encroachment on a public street. Justice Basu Chowdhury stated that what is protected under the 2014 Act is the right to engage in vending activities, specifically within a designated vending zone, and the right against eviction in certain prescribed circumstances.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Court recorded a clarification from the KMC. The Additional Advocate General submitted that additional time would be granted to vendors whose carts were not currently movable, allowing them an opportunity to make such carts movable in accordance with the provisions of the 2014 Act. The Court directed that if appropriate steps were undertaken within this extended period to ensure the movability of the carts, the August 3 notice would not be enforced against those specific street vendors. Finding no compelling reason to interfere with the municipal corporation's actions, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The matter had been mentioned before the Court citing urgency and was subsequently listed in the daily supplementary list after due notice to the respondents.