IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013 14TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 16898 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------- ` 1. HAMZA .C.A. PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, SASATHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI -17.
2. C.M. C. AHAMMED, PANOOR NIVAS, MASJID ROAD, KARUKAPALLI, KALOOR, KOCHI -17.
3. THAJU P.I., PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI”
4. THIMOTHI V.L. VADUKKUMCHERRY HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O., JETTY ROAD, ERNAKULAM 5 SIVAN K. MANAPPATTIPARAMBU ROAD, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM”
011. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
001.
3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 11 001. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.T. SHEEBA BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No. 16898 OF 201.APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD TOGETHER WITH REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER FSS ACT, 2006 EXT.P2 ; TRUE COPY OF THE STREET VENDOR (PROTECTION OF LIVELIHOOD AND REGULATION OF STREET VENDING) BILL, 2012. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 16898 OF 201.......................................................................... Dated this the 5th July, 2013 JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers: "i) to declare that the petitioners are not liable to be forcefully evicted and that their shops in the Manapattiparambu junction within the Kochi Corporation are not liable to be demolished until their rehabilitation by the Corporation or by the Government; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promulgate the scheme for rehabilitating and maintaining the street vendors/traders/hawkers within the limits of Kochi Corporation; iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from forcefully evicting the petitioners or from demolishing the shops run by the petitioners in the Manapattiparambu junction, at the places where Manappattiparambu road (LIC Road) and Sastha Temple Road meet together; W.P.(C)No. 16898 OF 201.2 iv) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from interfering with the trades conducted by the petitioners in a smooth and peaceful manner; v) to issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the course and proceedings being pursued by the first respondent so as to oust the petitioners from the premises where they are doing some petty trades, (particularly in respect of perishable items), without giving any breathing time, inspite of the fact that they are doing their trades there for the past so many years, is contrary to all the known principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also points out that no steps have been taken to rehabilitate them, which is obligatory on the part of the respondents before taking any further steps in this regard. Reference is also made to the steps being taken by the Central Government as to the introduction of a new Bill in the Lok Sabha under the name Street Vendors (Protection of W.P.(C)No. 16898 OF 201.3 Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill 2012 as per Bill No.104 of 2012, in this regard, and the definition of the term 'street vendors' under Section 2(1)(m) of the said Bill, which however is a child still to be born.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation and the learned Central Government Counsel at length.
4. No tenable ground has been established by the petitioners to call for interference invoking the discretionary jurisdiction; that too compromising with the 'public interest', to promote private interest.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the only relief now pressed before this Court is to grant the petitioners some breathing time to vacate the premises, particularly in view of the fact that they actually belong to poor sector of the society and that the items which are being dealt with by them are perishable goods like fish, fruits etc.
6. This Court finds that the submission made from the part of the petitioners is reasonable and that no prejudice will be W.P.(C)No. 16898 OF 201.4 caused to anybody, if the petitioners are given some breathing time to make other alternate arrangements. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand permitted to pursue the operation/trade for a further period of 'ten days', based on the assurance and undertaking given before this Court and that they shall effect vacant surrender of the premises immediately on expiry of the said period. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent Corporation to pursue further steps only if the commitment made before this Court is not honoured. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk