Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a batch of writ petitions and civil appeals concerning the eviction of street vendors operating bunks/kiosks within hospital premises and on road margins in Tamil Nadu. The National Association of Education Self-Employed Youth (NAESEY) and its members, including N. Jagadeesan and Tmt. Tamilselvi, had installed bunks/kiosks in hospitals, medical colleges, and on road margins in Madras, Vellore, and Tiruppur. Complaining of eviction otherwise than in accordance with law, they approached the Madras High Court and later the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed their petitions, leading to the present proceedings. The State of Tamil Nadu, through its Health and Family Welfare Department and other authorities, justified the removal on two grounds. First, kiosks within hospital premises were said to pose a health hazard: they created unhygienic conditions by littering, food items were consumed by in-patients and visitors, adversely affecting their health and treatment, and gatherings around the kiosks interfered with hospital functioning. Second, kiosks on road margins of three specified main thoroughfares in Madras and one each in Vellore and Tiruppur were removed because they caused traffic hazards. These roads carried high volume multimodal traffic from bullock carts to fast vehicles, and road widening had reduced footpath width, making the kiosks obstructions. The state clarified that removal was not from all roads, only from extremely busy ones, and that there was no attempt to remove kiosks to allow other persons to occupy those spots. The state also offered to consider applications for relocation to suitable places. The petitioners relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, arguing that members of the public have a right to legitimate user of roads beyond merely passing. The court acknowledged that principle but noted the same judgment clarified that such user must not create unreasonable obstruction or inconvenience to others, and that what constitutes public nuisance is a question of fact. Applying these principles, the court found the reasons for removal—health hazard and traffic obstruction—were reasonable, relevant, and not a make-believe. It held that the state was not acting inconsistently with Sodan Singh. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and civil appeals, recording the state's assurances and directing that evicted persons may apply for relocation, and that authorities shall consider such representations and pass orders without avoidable delay. No costs were awarded. The judgment affirmed that the right to street vending is not absolute and can be restricted for public health and traffic management.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Use Public Roads - Legitimate User Must Not Create Unreasonable Obstruction - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - Petitioners challenged removal of street vending kiosks from hospital premises and busy road margins under Article 32, claiming right to legitimate use of roads. The Court held that the right to use roads is not absolute and cannot create unreasonable obstruction or public nuisance; removal was justified on health and traffic grounds, and the writ petitions were dismissed. Held that state action did not violate constitutional rights. (Paras 1-3) B) Administrative Law - Health and Public Safety - Removal of Food Stalls from Hospital Premises - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - The State of Tamil Nadu removed bunks/kiosks from hospital and medical institution premises because they created unhygienic conditions, food items were consumed by patients affecting health, and gatherings interfered with hospital functioning. The Court accepted these reasons as relevant and reasonable, finding no ulterior motive; removal was proper. Held that health hazards justify eviction. (Paras 1-3) C) Administrative Law - Traffic Regulation and Relocation - Removal from Congested Roads for Traffic Safety - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - The State removed kiosks from specified busy thoroughfares in Madras, Vellore, and Tiruppur due to high traffic volume and road widening reducing footpath width. The Court held the action was not arbitrary and recorded the State's assurance to consider relocation applications; directed authorities to decide such applications without avoidable delay. Held that traffic safety measures are valid. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether removal of bunks/kiosks from hospital premises and busy road margins by State of Tamil Nadu is arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of street vendors' right to use public roads; whether such removal is consistent with principles in Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and civil appeals, holding that the petitioners had no legitimate grievance against the removal of bunks/kiosks from hospital premises and specified busy road margins. The Court recorded the State's assurance that removal was not for reallocation to others and directed that evicted persons may apply for relocation, and the concerned authorities shall consider such representations and pass orders without avoidable delay. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Right of public to legitimate user of roads is not absolute
- such user cannot create unreasonable obstruction
- public nuisance is a question of fact
- removal of street vending kiosks from hospital premises and busy roads for health and traffic safety is valid
- authorities to consider relocation applications without avoidable delay.
