Kerala High Court
WA/735/2025 of SARAMMA, Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, on 11 April 2025
W.A.No. 735 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 735 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 IN WP(C) NO.12892
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
WA NO. 735 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 IN WP(C) NO.12892
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SARAMMA,
AGED 69 YEARS, W/O. WILFRED,
ODASSERIL THOPPIL VEEDU, TUET, KOLLAM TALUK, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 001
BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR
SAILAKSHMI MENON
AASHI K. SHAJAN
MINZA FATHIMA SALIM M.
BINITHA MARIA THOMAS
KEZIL THOTTUKADAVIL CHERIAN
RESPONDENT
S / RE
S PONDENTS
:
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN–691 013
THE KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
OFFICE OF KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
CANTONMENT P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 691 001
THE SECRETARY,
KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CANTONMENT P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 001
THE CHAIRMAN,
TOWN VENDING COMMITTEE, KOLLAM MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, OFFICE OF KOLLAM MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 001
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROADS DIVISION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS DIVISION), KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 001
SRI. S. SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM), SC
SRI. V. TEKCHAND, SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C.J. Heard Mr. Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the Appellant/Original Petitioner, Mr. S. Sreekumar (Kollam), learned Standing Counsel for the Kollam Municipal Corporation and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader.
2. The appeal is filed by the Original Petitioner who is a street vendor doing the street vending activity within the jurisdiction of the Respondent Municipal Corporation. The Appellant was sought to be evicted from her place of business as a street vendor and challenging this action of the Municipal Corporation, the Appellant filed W.P. (C)No.12892 of 2025 and prayed for an interim relief. The learned Single Judge rejected the interim relief holding that the public interest will overweigh any statutory right under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (Act 7 of 2014).
3. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that an identical fact situation was considered by the Division Bench in the case of Mahadevi v. Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam Collectorate1 and by judgment dated 11 February 2025, the Division Bench observed that the street vendors have a statutory
2025 (2) KLT 90
protection and even for taking action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, case for summary eviction will have to be made out by the Municipal Corporation for such immediate threat, failing which the eviction will have to be as per the provisions of the Act 7 of 2014 and the Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood, Regulation of Street Vending and Licensing) Scheme, 2019 (Scheme of 2019). Even the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation agrees that the Municipal Corporation will have to proceed to take steps against the Appellant as per the provisions of the Act 7 of 2014 and the Scheme of 2019, as per the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mahadevi.
4. In light of this statement made by the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, which adequately protects the interests of the Appellant being in tune with the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mahadevi, no further orders are required to be passed in the appeal. It is accordingly disposed of. Sd/-
Nitin Jamdar
Chief Justice Sd/-
S. Manu
Judge vpv