Street Vendor Bound by Assurance to Operate via Movable Cart and Prohibited from Permanent Structures.

The petitioner, Smt. Mithu Banik, sought a direction for the removal of a permanent shop structure erected by Respondent No. 6 on the public footpath in front of her shop at 37/8, Mahatma Gandhi Road.

Previously, in WPO/700/2024, Respondent No. 6 had claimed unlawful eviction despite holding a vending license. That matter was disposed of on January 8, 2025, based on an assurance by Respondent No. 6 that he would operate using a "movable cart" rather than a permanent structure.

An appeal against that order was dismissed by a Division Bench on June 12, 2025.

The current petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 6 breached this undertaking by establishing a fixed structure.

A municipal inspection report dated March 14, 2026, confirmed that a permanent structure occupying 0.8m width and 2.06m length of the footpath had been set up.

Respondent No. 6 sought an adjournment claiming a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed, though no SLP number was provided.

1. Whether Respondent No. 6 violated the judicial undertaking and court order dated January 8, 2025, by erecting a permanent structure on a public footpath

2. Whether the municipal authorities are obligated to remove a stationary vending structure that obstructs a public footpath and violates the terms of a vending license/court assurance

The court applied the principle of judicial undertakings and the regulatory framework governing street vending within municipal limits.

It emphasized that permissions granted by the Court to vendors are contingent upon strict adherence to specific conditions—in this case, the use of a "movable cart" rather than a permanent or stationary encroachment.

The court implicitly relied on the municipal authority's power to regulate public footpaths and the Town Vending Committee's role in inspecting and ensuring that vending does not cause "significant disruption" to established businesses or public passage.

The court found that Respondent No. 6’s right to vend was explicitly conditioned by the order dated January 8, 2025, which was based on his own advocate's assurance that no permanent structure would be built.

The Municipal Corporation's inspection report and photographs provided conclusive evidence that the respondent had deviated from this assurance by installing a "fixed stationary cart/stall".

The court rejected the respondent's plea for an adjournment based on a pending SLP, noting the lack of an SLP number and the significant lapse of time since the Division Bench order.

The court reasoned that since the respondent’s business operation was being carried out in a "stationary manner" directly in front of the petitioner’s shop—contrary to the court's previous directions—it constituted an unauthorized encroachment that required immediate rectification.

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation was directed to conduct a follow-up inspection within three weeks. If the municipal authorities find that the cart has not been made movable or is still being operated in a stationary fashion, they are mandated to remove the structure/stall entirely.