Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE4H DAY OF AUGUST201513TH SRAVANA, 1937 WA.No. 1707 of 2015 () ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 12299/2015 DATED2407-2015 --------------------- APPELLANT : --------------------- S.THAMPAN AGED58YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, 'GURUGEETHAM', KANNIMEL NAGAR ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM-695309. BY ADVS.SRI.T.I.UNNIRAJA SRI.S.BADUSHA RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, VIDYA NAGAR, KOLLAM-691 013.
4. THAHASILDAR KOLLAM TALUK OFFICE, TALUK KACHERY, KOLLAM - 691001. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0408-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * W.A.No.1707 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August 2015
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, CJ This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24/07/2015 in W.P.C.No.12299/2015. Petitioner, whose house is in thodu puramboke and is carrying on a stationery business near to his house, has come up in the writ petition praying for quashing Ext.P3 notice by which he was directed to evict from the place. By Ext.P3, petitioner was informed that a house has been allotted to his family as part of Tsunami Rehabilitation Project of Kerala Government. Notice further mentioned that unauthorised construction of house in thodu puramboke need to be demolished. Challenging the said notice, writ petition was filed in which the following reliefs have been claimed: "i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the Exhibit P3 eviction notice affixed by the respondents. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to W.A.No.1707 of 2015 2 stop the eviction process in pursuance to Exhibit P3 till the formalities under The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood And Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014) are complied by the respondents." 2. In the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed by the State where it was pleaded that petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of thodu puramboke and he is running a stationery shop near to his house. It has been further pleaded that petitioner is not a street vendor. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that as per the list, 881 families who were residing in both sides of thodu puramboke were decided to be rehabilitated. It has been pleaded that out of 881 families, 705 families have been evicted and rehabilitated to flat type houses allotted to them. Petitioner was reluctant to leave the thodu puramboke.
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition holding that petitioner cannot be said to be governed by the definition of 'street vendor' under 'The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood And Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2014). Writ petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, has come up in this writ appeal. W.A.No.1707 of 2015 3 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the stationery shop, which is being run by him, is only adjacent to the house and not an extension of the house. It is submitted that he is a stationary vendor within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act, 2014. It is further submitted that he is entitled to the benefit of the Act, 2014 and he could not have been directed to vacate from the place without following the procedure prescribed in the Act, 2014. He further submits that he has no objection in shifting his house from the thodu puramboke and to occupy the allotted house. He may be allowed to carry on his business of stationery which he is carrying on in the thodu puramboke.
5. The learned Government Pleader, refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that petitioner has no right to continue in the thodu puramboke and the Government, having decided to evict the families residing in both sides of thodu puramboke, petitioner cannot be allowed to carry on business therein.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader and perused the records. W.A.No.1707 of 2015 4 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner's house and the building where he is carrying on his business is situated in thodu puramboke. Out of the 881 families which were decided to be evicted from both sides of thodu puramboke, 705 families have been alloted with alternative residence. Petitioner has also been offered an alternative residence. The thrust of the submission of the petitioner is that he is a stationary street vendor under the Act, 2014. Definition of 'Street vendor' is contained in Section 2(l) which is to the following effect. "2(l): "street vendor" means a person engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise of everyday use or offering services to the general public, in a street, lane, side walk, footpath, pavement, public park or any other public place or private area, from a temporary built up structure or by moving from place to place and includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terms which may be local or region specific; and the words "street vending" with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly;" 8. 'Stationary Vendor' has been defined under Section 2 (k). W.A.No.1707 of 2015 5 2(k): "stationary vendors" means street vendors who carry out vending activities on regular basis at a specific location;" 8. The definition under Section 2(k) cannot protect a person who is carrying on business in a thodu puramboke. Further, carrying out business by the petitioner is not from a temporary built up structure or by moving from place to place. Rather, as stated in the counter affidavit, the stationery business is being carried out in an area which is an extension of the house of the petitioner; which has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit which is to the following effect: "5. Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.03.2015, being refused to accept, the Village Officer affixed the notice in the petitioner's house. The shop is a small extension from the petitioner's house. The electricity connection taken by the petitioner is for domestic purpose only. This means the main building is his house; the shop is only a small extension from the house." W.A.No.1707 of 2015 6 9. From the facts brought on record, we are of the view that the decision taken by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is not covered by the Act, 2014 is correct and no interference is called for to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Writ appeal is dismissed. (sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr W.A.No.1707 of 2015 7 W.A.No.1707 of 2015 8