Street Vendors Act protects lawful vending, not unauthorized permanent structures or encroachments on public streets.

The petitioners, including three registered hawkers’ unions, approached the Court seeking protection of the livelihood of their members, who allegedly carried on vending activities on Dhapa Road and adjoining areas within the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (“KMC”). They relied on Section 2(1) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (“Street Vendors Act”) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners challenged a public eviction notice dated 3 August 2026, which had been pasted on the outer walls of shops and was issued by the Executive Engineer, Borough VII, KMC.

The petitioners also relied on the minutes of the 29th meeting of the Town Vending Committee held on 27 June 2026, asserting that although a list of no-vending zones existed, there had been no proper notification of such zones. KMC contended that, pursuant to a complaint by the Active Area Apartment Owners’ Association, it had found permanent and temporary structures erected over an existing KMC footpath, obstructing public movement. Notices had consequently been issued under Sections 371 and 516 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, granting the encroachers fifteen days to relocate.

Whether the protection afforded by the Street Vendors Act extends to permanent or semi-permanent structures and encroachments erected on a public street or footpath.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to protection against implementation of the eviction notice dated 3 August 2026 on the ground that their vending activities were protected under the Street Vendors Act and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Whether movable vending carts could be excluded from the proposed eviction upon being made movable in accordance with the Street Vendors Act.

The Court applied Section 2(1) and the protective scheme of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which protects lawful street-vending activity, particularly vending in a vending zone and the statutory protection against eviction in applicable circumstances.

The Court held that the Act does not protect illegal or unauthorised construction, permanent structures, or encroachments upon public streets. It also applied Sections 371 and 516 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, concerning unauthorised structures and municipal action against such violations.

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, while protecting the right to carry on trade or business, does not confer a right to maintain unauthorised constructions or encroachments on public land.

The Court noted that the petitioners had not produced material demonstrating that they were authorised street vendors or that the disputed structures were situated in a notified vending zone.

On the material placed by KMC—including the Executive Engineer’s report, the complaint, and photographs—the Court found that the municipal action was directed primarily against permanent or semi-permanent structures erected over a public footpath and obstructing public movement, rather than against lawful vending activity as such. Accordingly, the Street Vendors Act could not be invoked to protect such unauthorised construction or encroachment.

At the same time, the Court recorded KMC’s clarification that vending carts which were presently immovable would be given additional time to be made movable in conformity with the Street Vendors Act; if that was done, the eviction notice would not be implemented against those vendors.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. However, KMC was required to provide additional time to owners of immovable vending carts to make them movable in accordance with the Street Vendors Act; upon compliance, the notice dated 3 August 2026 was not to be implemented against such vendors. No further relief was granted.