Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held that the powers under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, prevail over those conferred by the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, even when a vendor operates without a trade license. The Court clarified that any municipal action against such vendors must strictly follow the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019. Directing the Chavakkad Municipality to return the seized cart and weighing machines and pay Rs. 30,000 in compensation, the Court found the seizure and destruction of goods unlawful and violative of the petitioner’s right to livelihood.

The petitioner, Nisham, a resident of Pallithazham, Chavakkad, Thrissur, earns his livelihood by selling fish using a four-wheel cart within the limits of Chavakkad Municipality. On 29 September 2024, the third respondent, the Public Health Inspector of the Municipality, conducted an inspection following a complaint alleging that Nisham’s cart caused obstruction to other vendors, vehicles, and pedestrians. Based on this inspection, the Municipality, with police assistance, seized his cart, approximately 82 kilograms of fish, and two electronic weighing scales. The fish was destroyed on-site, and the remaining items were retained by the Municipality. These details were recorded in a mahazar dated 29 September 2024.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Four in 1990 Murder Case, Citing Prosecution’s Suppression of Origin and Genesis of Offence

Following the seizure, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the Municipal authorities demanding the return of his cart and weighing scales. He also filed Crl.M.P. No. 7986 of 2024 before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release of the seized property. The Magistrate, however, dismissed his petition, holding that the Municipality had acted within its powers. Subsequently, the Municipality issued a notice imposing a fine of Rs. 5000 on the petitioner, alleging non-compliance with health squad directions. Nisham then approached the High Court, asserting that the seizure and destruction violated principles of natural justice and his right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner sought return of his seized items, quashing of the Municipality’s actions as illegal, and compensation for the loss suffered due to the destruction of his fish and continued retention of his tools of trade.

 
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that "even assuming that the petitioner did not have a trade license as contended by the municipality or was vending without a certificate, the Municipality had to conform to the procedure above referred, which admittedly was not done." The Court stated that the Municipality failed to follow the statutory safeguards governing seizure, eviction, and disposal of goods.

Referring to Regulation 16 of the 2019 Scheme, the Court recorded that any seizure of goods from a street vendor must be accompanied by a detailed inventory, duly signed by the vendor, and that perishable goods should be preserved for at least 24 hours unless certified as noxious or harmful. The Court noted that these mandatory steps were not followed. It observed that "the petitioner further contends that the respondents failed to prepare any inventory at the time of seizure, failed to obtain his signature, and destroyed the fish without any sanitary certification or test to establish that the goods were noxious or unfit for consumption." The Court found this claim substantiated and stated that "such summary destruction, without compliance with Regulation 16(2) of the 2019 Scheme or the conditions of Section 481 of the Municipality Act, is manifestly arbitrary and illegal."

The judgment further stated that "the power to destroy the articles under Section 481 is only for those items prescribed in Section 479," holding that the Municipality acted beyond its statutory authority. The Court declared that "this is a total violation of the provisions of the 2019 Scheme, which was framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 38 of the Street Vendors Act," and that the Central statute and regulations override the Municipality’s powers under the Kerala Municipality Act.

The Court observed the broader constitutional implications of the Municipality’s conduct, stating that "the petitioner, a hapless fishmonger struggling at the margins of existence, was illegally prevented from carrying on his avocation, and his entire stock of fish was destroyed. This constitutes a stark abuse of power, exercised with high-handed arbitrariness, and amounts to nothing less than denial of the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." The Court concluded that "when the Authority is abused in such an oppressive action against a defenceless citizen, the law mandates a remedy in the form of compensation for the unlawful restraint on his livelihood."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction for Sexual Assault on Minor; Clarifies Entire Electronic Record Must Be Produced Even If Only Portions Are Relied On

The Court stated that "it is declared that the entire actions of the Municipality leading to Ext.P4 are high-handed, unjust, and unfair, trampling upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner."

The Court ordered that "there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards the value of the fish illegally destroyed and also to return the cart and the two electronic weighing scales forthwith." Further, "there will be a further direction to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner for the high-handed acts of respondents 2 and 3. Municipality shall pay the amount within a month and recover the same from those found responsible."

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Mohammed Ashraf, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Shri. V.N. Haridas, Advocate.

Case Title: Nisham v. Chavakkad Municipality & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:74984
Case Number: WP(C) No. 27916 of 2025
Bench: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.