Municipal authorities must provide alternative sites or relocation prior to evicting licensed market vendors.

The Petitioner operates a licensed fruit and vegetable shop, "Adarsh Fruit Company," at Sanjay Complex, Raigarh.

On November 11, 2025, Respondent No. 3 (Municipal Corporation Raigarh) issued an eviction notice alleging that the shop’s shade obstructed access to a public toilet.

The Petitioner challenged this notice, asserting that the shop did not hinder public access and constituted his sole source of income.

He sought parity with the relief granted to similarly situated vendors in Kailash Jigyashi v. Municipal Corporation Raigarh (WPC No. 1490/2021), wherein the Corporation had previously committed to resettling displaced vendors at existing or alternative locations.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the same legal protection and resettlement benefits granted to similarly situated occupants of Sanjay Complex under previous judicial orders.

2. Whether the Respondent Corporation can proceed with coercive eviction without first addressing the Petitioner’s grievances in line with established resettlement protocols.

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principles established in WPC No. 1490/2021 and WPC No. 678/2013, which integrated the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

These precedents established that the Municipal Corporation is bound by its own undertaking (affidavit dated 09.12.2020) to provide evicted vendors with alternative business sites during construction and priority allotment of new shops/pislras via a lottery system upon completion, subject to the payment of rent and dues.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s case was "squarely covered" by the precedents involving Sanjay Complex vendors.

It noted that in the previous litigation, the Municipal Commissioner had submitted a formal proposal to systematically manage the relocation and re-allotment of shops to ensure vendors were not deprived of their livelihoods.

Since the Respondents did not object to the application of these terms to the present case, the Court reasoned that the Petitioner must be governed by the same conditions.

To prevent irreparable harm, the Court determined that the Corporation could not execute the specific eviction notice regarding the alleged toilet obstruction until it fulfilled its broader resettlement obligations under the court-approved scheme.

The Court further ordered that no coercive action or eviction shall be taken against the Petitioner in respect of the notice dated 11.11.2025 until his grievances are redressed under the aforementioned terms.