Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15519 of 2019 (L) — Johnson Mathew and others v. State of Kerala and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
- Judgment Date
- 2019-10-04
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition dismissed; the impugned order denying permission to occupy the National Highway stands; the petitioners’ objections are not justified; the 2014 Street Vendors Act does not apply to National Highways and the highway remains regulated under the CNHLTA 2002.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Johnson Mathew
- Daisy.K.B.
- Mathai Augusthy
- Syed Muhammed
- Rajesh.C.R.
- Mohananjan.P.B.
- Anshad.P.K.
- T.K.Ravi
- Abdul Saleem.P.A.
- Nideesh.P.M.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
- District Collector, Idukki
- Adimaly Grama Panchayat, Adimaly-685561, Idukki District
- Secretary, Adimaly Grama Panchayat, Adimaly-685561, Idukki District
- National Highway Authority of India, represented by its Chairman, New Delhi-110075
- Executive Engineer, National Highway (R Division), Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam-686661
- Assistant Engineer, NH(R) Section, Neriyamangalam, Ernakulam-686693
- Chief Engineer, National Highways, Department of Public Works, Thiruvananthapuram-695033
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Kaleeswaram Raj Kumar
- • A. Aruna Kum
- • Thulasi K. Raj
- • Maitrey Sachidananda Hegde
Counsels for Respondents
- • Latheesh Sebastian
- • K.V. Sohan
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners are street vendors who conducted street vending along the Kochi–Madhurai National Highway-85 near Cheeyapara waterfalls and received eviction notices. They had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.31825 of 2018. The learned Single Judge, referring to the Division Bench decision in Cherian Philip v. National Highways Authority of India, held that the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 does not contemplate street vending on National Highways regulated under the Control of National Highway (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and that no one can use any part of the National Highway without permission under that Act. The petitioners sought to occupy the National Highway under Sections 24–26 of the CNHLTA 2002, arguing long-standing occupation (about 20 years) and the necessity to protect livelihoods. The Executive Engineer declined permission citing lack of space and potential hazards to the public. The petitioners’ counsel argued for extending protection under the 2014 Act; however, the Court maintained that the 2014 Act does not apply to National Highways and affirmed the NH Authority’s findings. Consequently, the Court concluded that there is no justification to reverse the impugned order, and the writ petition is dismissed. The decision reinforces the view that National Highways remain outside the scope of the Street Vendors Act and are governed by highway-specific statutes and authorities.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the protection and livelihood provisions under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 should extend to their occupation on the National Highway, and that they should be permitted to occupy the National Highway under the powers conferred by Sections 24–26 of the CNHLTA 2002. They emphasize the long-standing practice of occupation (over 20 years) and rely on prior representations and orders to justify continuance of vending activity, arguing that the NH authority’s earlier determinations should accommodate their livelihoods. They further challenge the impugned order on grounds that the 2014 Act applies and that sufficient space or safety concerns should be addressed to allow vending along the highway.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the Street Vendors Act, 2014 does not apply to National Highways. National Highways are regulated under the CNHLTA, 2002, and occupancy or vending on the highway requires permission under the Act. The Executive Engineer declined permission under Sections 24–26 due to lack of space and potential hazards to public safety. The court cannot reverse the NH Authority’s findings, and the petitioners’ occupation cannot be regularized under the highway-specific regime, as the Act does not cover National Highways and the authority must safeguard highway safety and traffic interests.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cherian Philip v. National Highways Authority of India | 2015 (3) KLT 723 | Positive | The Division Bench relied on this decision to hold that Street Vendors Act, 2014 does not apply to National Highways and occupancy without authorization under CNHLTA is not permissible. |
| W.P.(C).No.31825/2018 | W.P.(C).31825/2018 | Mentioned Only | Petitioners had earlier approached this Court in this case; cited as background to the current matter but not a direct ratio relied upon. |
| W.P.(C).No.41868/2018 and connected cases | W.P.(C).No.41868/2018 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P15 references a judgment in 41868/2018; mentioned as a related matter but not a central ratio in the current decision. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15519 of 2019 (L) — Johnson Mathew and others v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.