By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows: -
1. The complainant is a street vendor, is doing self-employment within the jurisdictional limits of opposite parties. Meanwhile, the opposite parties displayed boards prohibiting street vending within the areas including Pattarnadakavu, Kodakkal, Karanthoor , Kadungathund and kalpakannchery etc. Moreover, the officers of the opposite parties with the aid of police threatened the complainant like street vendors and thereby obstructed the street vending. As a result, several persons including the family of the complainant put in trouble. The submission of the complainant is that there is no provision in the panchayat Raj Act to ban the street vending. Hence the complainant prays for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the second opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party not appeared and so set exparete.
3. The second opposite party filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party prohibited street vending within the jurisdictional area of the second opposite party. The license for street venders normally issuing under The Street Venders (Protection of Lively hood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 and the rules there under. As per the rule 4 of the same, town vending committee is the authority to issue the License. There is no vending committee in the second opposite party grama panchayat as per the government notification 17/DC1/2022LSGD, dated 22/02/2022. The process initiated only in the area of municipalities and corporations. As per government survey there was identified 93 municipalities are growing urban agglomeration. The second opposite party is not coming within the identified area. Only after the above said survey, the town vending committees are formed and there after licenses are issued. Hence there is no scope for issuing street vendors licenses in the second opposite party area.
4. The opposite party further submitted that there is no prohibitory order regarding street vending within the Valavanoor grama panchayat area. So, there is no occasion to install prohibitory boards by the employees of the second opposite party. The opposite party never seized any of instruments of the complainant, no action has been taken against the complainant and no grievance has been caused to the complainant on account of the acts initiated by the second opposite party. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with the cost of the opposite party.
5. The complainant and second opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A7. Documents on the side of second opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. A1 is copy of medical fitness certificate for food handlers for the year 2020 -21 issued to the complainant. Ext. A2 is copy of application for registration under food safety and standers act 2006. Ext. A3 is copy of information issued by the first opposite party to the complainant dated 03/02/2022 under Right to Information Act. Ext. A4 is copy of prohibitory board established by the first opposite party regarding street vending. Ext. A5 is copy of Valavannoor Grama Panchayat board meeting notice issued by the Valavanoor Grama panchayat to the complainant under Right to Information Act. Ext. A6 is copy of prohibitory board displayed by the second opposite party regarding street vending. Ext. A7 is copy of information furnished by the second opposite party to the complainant under Right to Information Act. Ext.B1 is copy of government order in 1226/2021/LSGD dated 29/06/2021. Ext. B2 is copy of list of panchyat prepared by the Kudumbasree through the senses revealing the name of panchayats and number of wards. EXT. B3 is copy of government circular dated 22/02/2022 LSGD No.17/DC1/2022/LSGD.
6. Heard complainant and second opposite party, perused affidavit, and documents. The following points arise for consideration
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Relief and cost?
7. Point NO.1 & 2
The grievance of the complainant is that he is being a street vendor the act of opposite parties displaying prohibitory boards regarding street vending within the jurisdiction of the opposite parties resulted much hardship and inconvenience to the complainant. The opposite party with assistance of police officials obstructed the street vending and seized the instruments from the complainant. The complainant submitted the opposite party have no right to prohibit street vending under the grama panchayat Act.
8. The second opposite party filed affidavit contenting that they have not prohibited the street vending within the jurisdictional limit of the opposite party and also not issued license to street vendors within the jurisdictional limit of the gram panchayat. it is further submitted that the government has conducted survey regarding the street vendors and that also does not find place for the second opposite party. The opposite party denied that they displayed prohibitory boards regarding street vending. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 to B3 in support of their contention. Ex.t B3 direct the municipalities and corporations to form street vendors committee and issue certificate and ID cards to the deserving persons. The specific contention of the second opposite party is that they are not included in the list and no such prohibitory board has been displayed by them.
9. The complainant produced document to show display of prohibitory boards as Ex. A4 and A6. But we cannot accept these documents as sufficient to prove allegations of the complainant. Though complainant produced Ext. A1 and A2 there is no document to show that he is a licensed street vendor. Complainant has not produced street vendors license issued either by the first opposite party or by the second opposite party. There is no document to show that anybody had seized instruments or articles from the complainant. The complainant failed to establish a specific case which can be considered under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. In the absence of sufficient evidence to establish the grievance of the complainant we cannot uphold the contention of the complainant. The complainant can approach the appropriate authority if he is aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties. The averment in the complaint cannot be treated as a consumer dispute. Hence, we finds that the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 3rd day of July , 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A7
Ext.A1: copy of medical fitness certificate for food handlers forr the year 202021 issued to the complainant .
Ext.A2: copy of application for registration under food safety and standers act 2006.
Ext A3: copy of information issued by the first opposite party to the complainant dated 03/02/2022 under Right to Information Act.
Ext A4: copy of prohibitory board establish by first opposite party regarding street vending.
Ext A5: copy of meeting notice issued by the Valavanoor Grama panchayat to the complainant under Right to Information Act.
Ext A6: copy of prohibitory board displayed by the second opposite party regarding street vending.
Ext A7: copy of information furnished by the second opposite party to the complainant under Right to Information Act.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: copy of government order in 1226/2021/LSGD dated 29/06/2021.
Ext.B2: copy of list of panchyat prepared by the Kudumbasree through the senses revealing the name of panchayat and number of wards.
Ext.B3: copy of government circular dated 22/02/2022 LSGD No.17/DC1/2022/LSGD
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
