Introduction:

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India addressed the plight of meat vendors in Panjim, Goa, who faced displacement following the demolition of a building where they had conducted business for over three decades. The case, titled The Corporation of the City of Panaji vs. Mushtak Hussain Khatib (SLP(C) No. 030051 – 030053 / 2024), was presided over by a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma.

Background:

The respondents, a group of meat vendors, had been operating their businesses in a building owned by the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) for more than 30 years. Due to the building’s deteriorating and unsafe condition, the CCP deemed it necessary to demolish the structure, leading to the displacement of these vendors. In response, the vendors approached the Bombay High Court, seeking intervention to secure their livelihoods.

High Court’s Directive:

The Bombay High Court directed the CCP to undertake the construction and maintenance of public markets and slaughterhouses and to regulate all markets and slaughterhouses in the interim period, emphasizing public interest. This directive was grounded in Section 59(1)(o) of The City of Panaji Corporation Act, 2002, which mandates the CCP to ensure the construction and maintenance of public markets and slaughterhouses and to regulate them accordingly.

CCP’s Challenge:

Challenging the High Court’s order, the CCP contended that the directive exceeded its statutory obligations under Section 59 of the Act. The corporation argued that while the Act outlines its duties concerning public markets and slaughterhouses, the specific directive to accommodate the displaced meat vendors in a temporary fish market was beyond its statutory remit.

Supreme Court Proceedings:

During the Supreme Court hearing, the CCP informed the bench of its resolution dated January 24, wherein it agreed to allocate fixed spots in the southeastern part of the temporary fish market to six meat vendors. The vendors’ counsel, Senior Advocate Atmaram NS Nadkarni, along with advocates Rohit Braz D’sa and S.S. Rebello, further requested permission for the vendors to install essential equipment such as refrigerators, mincers, and mincing machines, along with access to electricity and water. They also sought to have the allotted area enclosed and secured to maintain hygiene and operational efficiency.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court permitted the installation of the requested equipment and the enclosure of the allotted area, clarifying that this arrangement was purely temporary. The Court emphasized that this interim solution was to ensure the vendors could continue their trade until a permanent arrangement was established. Additionally, the Court declined to address issues raised by non-meat vendors in this proceeding, directing that any other vendors seeking to enforce their lease rights should pursue civil suits independently.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing statutory interpretations with the practical needs of citizens. By allowing the displaced meat vendors to continue their trade in a temporary setting, the Court acknowledged the importance of livelihood preservation while awaiting a permanent solution. This case highlights the intricate relationship between municipal authorities’ statutory duties and the rights of individuals dependent on public infrastructure for their livelihoods.