Archive · 25 Aug 2026
Karnataka HC stays FIR against Mangaluru vendors’ leader, questions govt
A city agency in Mangaluru tried to remove temporary street stalls near Town Hall.
The action was said to be connected to a Supreme Court order about making proper footpaths.
A street vendors’ association leader and others were accused of obstructing and assaulting officials.
They denied that the action followed the correct legal process.
Their lawyer said video showed the leader asking officials to follow the law.
The Karnataka High Court temporarily stopped the FIR from proceeding.
The court said the Supreme Court had not ordered the removal of street vendors.
It also said vendors still have protections under a 2014 law.
Any eviction must follow rules that include protection and rehabilitation.
The Karnataka High Court stayed an FIR against B K Imtiyaz and others after an eviction drive near Mangaluru Town Hall.
The court said the Supreme Court order cited by authorities concerned proper footpaths, not eviction of street vendors.
It held that protections under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, remained in force.
The court said any eviction or relocation must follow the procedure for protection and rehabilitation under the 2014 Act.
Imtiyaz’s lawyer argued that the complaint lacked details of alleged victims, assault, injuries, and specific conduct by the accused.
- Who
- Dakshina Kannada District Street Vendors’ Association working president B K Imtiyaz and others; Mangaluru City Corporation officials; the Karnataka High Court.
- What
- The Karnataka High Court stayed an FIR linked to an eviction drive and questioned the government’s interpretation of a Supreme Court order.
- When
- During the High Court hearing on the petition challenging the FIR.
- Where
- Near Town Hall in Mangaluru, Karnataka.
- Why
- The FIR followed an eviction operation against temporary street stalls, while the petitioners argued that authorities had not followed the statutory procedure for vendors.
Street Vendors’ Association and Petitioners
Civic Authorities and Government Interpretation
Meaning of the Supreme Court order
Street Vendors’ Association and Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the judgment concerned pedestrian infrastructure and did not direct the eviction of street vendors or weekly markets.
Civic Authorities and Government Interpretation
Authorities relied on the Supreme Court directions while carrying out the eviction drive, which the High Court said appeared to involve an incorrect interpretation of the order.
Legal process for eviction
Street Vendors’ Association and Petitioners
The petitioners said civic authorities must follow the 2014 Act’s procedures before evicting or relocating vendors and argued that the Sunday Bazaar was a temporary weekly market, not permanent encroachment.
Civic Authorities and Government Interpretation
The authorities proceeded with removing temporary stalls near Town Hall as part of measures purportedly taken in compliance with the Supreme Court directions.
Alleged obstruction and assault
Street Vendors’ Association and Petitioners
B K Imtiyaz’s lawyer said the complaint did not identify an alleged victim, describe the assault, or mention injuries, and that video showed Imtiyaz asking officials to follow legal procedure.
Civic Authorities and Government Interpretation
Mangaluru City Corporation officials filed the FIR alleging obstruction and assault during the eviction operation.
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Judge
- Justice M Nagaprasanna
- FIR respondents
- B K Imtiyaz and others
- Complainant
- Mangaluru City Corporation officials
- Law cited
- Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
- Location
- Town Hall area, Mangaluru
- Supreme Court judgment cited
- Maniyar Iliyaz v P Ayyappan and Others