JUDGMENT : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. A Local Self Government Institution and its Secretary have approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as, 'Human Rights Commission') directing payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/-to the 3rd respondent, a street vendor for summarily evicting him and taking away the articles kept for sale. 2. The 3rd respondent, who claims to be a vendor of clothes and garments on the side of Modern Hotel, off the pavement at K.K. road, Kottayam since 08.07.1984, approached the Human Rights Commission by Ext. P4 complaint alleging that, on 14.05.2015, at around 12.15 P.M, a sanitation worker from the Municipality asked him to remove a waste kit placed near his vending place and when told that he has not kept the waste kit there, the worker abused him and later, when he left the vending place to buy medicine, about 15 employees of the Municipality came in a garbage collection vehicle and took away all the clothes kept by him for sale. He contended that his source of livelihood has been affected and he is not in a position to repay the loans and he sustained a loss of Rs.2,34,000/-and has to be compensated by the Municipality. 3. The Municipality filed a report before the Human Rights Commission stating that the 3rd respondent was summarily evicted pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 14.05.2015 and in exercise of powers under Section 367 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 since there were reports regarding obstruction to vehicular and pedestrian traffic in K.K road and M.L road due to street vending and the 3rd respondent was occupying ¾ portion of the pavement and was littering the area causing blockage of the drain. 4. The Human Rights Commission visited the premises of the Municipality and recorded that only one box and a few items could be seen and no details of the items seized were recorded in the mahazar. 5. In Ext.P7 order, the Human Rights Commission observed that though several persons were vending at the side of the road, only the 3rd respondent was evicted and it is evident that the 3rd respondent was evicted at the behest of the owner of the hotel near the place where the 3rd respondent is vending. 5. In Ext.P7 order, the Human Rights Commission observed that though several persons were vending at the side of the road, only the 3rd respondent was evicted and it is evident that the 3rd respondent was evicted at the behest of the owner of the hotel near the place where the 3rd respondent is vending. The Commission found that the action of the Municipality in picking and choosing the 3rd respondent for the purpose of eviction is discriminatory. The Commission also found that the eviction of the 3rd respondent without notice from the place where he is doing business for a quarter century is inhumane and is in violation of natural justice, his human rights and right to life and the directions of the Honb'le Supreme Court and the Government Policies. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the loss of income, infringement of human rights and right to life and mental agony suffered by the 3rd respondent, the Human Rights Commission directed the Municipality to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-as compensation to him and further directed to provide facility to him to re-allocate, once place is available. 6. Ext.P7 order is challenged by the petitioners contending that there is no violation of human rights and the 1st respondent lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the 3rd respondent. It is further contended that the Municipality can summarily evict the encroachers under Sections 367 (3) and 372 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the officers of the Municipality have performed the said duty in implementation of Ext.P1 order issued by the Secretary and execution of lawful orders cannot be treated as violation of any rights, less human rights. It is also contended that the Human Rights Commission cannot order payment of compensation and can make only recommendation to the Authority under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Accordingly, the petitioners pray for direction to quash Ext.P7 and to declare that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to pay com pensation. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners pray for direction to quash Ext.P7 and to declare that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to pay com pensation. 7. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that he is entitled for protection from eviction under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and is entitled for re-allocation under the Act and that the action of the petitioners in evicting him without notice and by destroying articles amounts to great injustice and violation of human rights and the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to order compensation. It is further contended that, having subject to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and having not raised the issue of maintainability of the complaint before the 1st respondent at the first instance, the petitioners are estopped from raising any objection as to the maintainability of the complaint and the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent in awarding compensation. 8. Heard Sri.Ajith Joy, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Thushara James, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri. K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 6th respondent. 9. The Human Rights Commission found that the 3rd respondent has been doing garment business on the side of K.K Road for over a quarter century and he alone was evicted by the employees of the Municipality though others were also doing street vending at the same place. The Human Rights Commission further found that the eviction was without notice and the 3rd respondent was not given time to remove his articles and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, infringement of rights relating to life and equality. The Commission also observed that the eviction was at the behest of the owner of the Hotel near the place where the 3rd respondent was vending. From the pleadings before the Human Rights Commission, it is seen that there was an altercation between a sanitation worker of the Municipality and the 3rd respondent before the articles were removed in garbage collection vehicle. The Commission found that there was no proper mahazar with regard to the articles seized from the 3rd respondent. 10. From the pleadings before the Human Rights Commission, it is seen that there was an altercation between a sanitation worker of the Municipality and the 3rd respondent before the articles were removed in garbage collection vehicle. The Commission found that there was no proper mahazar with regard to the articles seized from the 3rd respondent. 10. Section 367 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 deals with removal of encroachments and reads as follows:- “367. REMOVAL OF ENCROACHMENTS.— (1) The Secretary may, by notice, require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection. Encroachment or obstruction other than a door, gate, bar or ground floor window situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any street. (2) Where the owner or occupier of the premises proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give any person a prescriptive title thereto or that it was erected or may with the permission or licence of any authority duly empowered in that behalf, and that the period, if any, for which the permission or licence, is valid has not expired, the Municipality shall make reasonable compensation to every person who suffers damage by the removal or alteration of the same. (3) Where the Secretary is satisfied that any road or public street including footpath, if any, thereof belonging to the Municipality or vested in it or otherwise is encroached upon by any person in any form, either temporarily or permanently so as to cause obstruction or hindrance or inconvenience to traffic and users of the street, the Secretary may summarily evict such encroachments and may seize and dispose of any belonging or article that may be found on such road or street and no person shall be entitled to claim compensation for any action taken by the Secretary in this behalf.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Section 372 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 reads as follows: “372. Section 372 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 reads as follows: “372. SECRETARY MAY WITHOUT NOTICE REMOVE ENCROACHMENT.— Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Secretary may, without notice, cause to be removed- (a) Any wall, fence, rail, step, booth, or other structure or fixture which is erected or set up in contravention of the provisions of section 369; (b) Any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale, or any other thing whatsoever, placed or deposited in contravention of section 370; (c) Any article, whatsoever, hawked or exposed for sale in any public place or in any public street in contravention of section 371 and any vehicle, package, box, board, shelf or any other thing in or on which such article placed or kept for the purpose of sale.” While Section 367 (1) of the Municipality Act provides for notice for removal of encroachment in or over any street (which includes a footway going by the definition of 'public street' under Section 2 (34) (b)), sub-section (3) thereof empowers the Secretary to summarily evict encroachments on any road or public street, including footpath where the Secretary is satisfied that such road or public street including footpath is encroached upon by any person in any form, either temporarily or permanently so as to cause obstruction or hindrance or inconvenience to traffic and users of the street. Summary eviction of encroachment from public street or footpath can be done, if the Secretary is 'satisfied' that 'encroachment causes obstruction or hindrance or inconvenience to traffic and users of the street'. A reading of Section 367 (3) shows that the power vested in the Secretary to summarily evict encroachments is discretionary and shall be exercised judicially and reasonably. The power of summary eviction shall be exercised by the Secretary in cases of urgency which brooks no delay. In other cases, the Secretary may, by notice, require removal of encroachment. In the light of the fact the 3rd respondent had been engaged in vending at the place for long, notice should have been issued to the 3rd respondent before eviction, so that he could have offered his explanation or could have taken away the articles kept for sale. 12. The 3rd respondent alone was evicted by the Municipality though others were also doing street vending at the same place. 12. The 3rd respondent alone was evicted by the Municipality though others were also doing street vending at the same place. The Municipality cannot follow pick and choose policy and there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of eviction of street vendors. The action of the Municipality has infringed the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to the 3rd respondent under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The right of the 3rd respondent to carry on vending on street guaranteed by the Constitution is subject to the restrictions imposed by the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. However, we find that the power of removal of encroachers vested in the Secretary under the Municipality Act is not exercised judicially and reasonably. The 3rd respondent's right to livelihood has been deprived otherwise than in accordance with a just and fair procedure established by law. Consequently, it follows that the Municipality has infringed the fundamental rights of the 3rd respondent under Article 21 of the Constitution. 14. Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines "Human Rights" to mean the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. We have found that the action of the Municipality and its officers in evicting the 3rd respondent has infringed his rights relating to life and equality guaranteed by the Constitution. Violation of rights relating to life and equality guaranteed by the Constitution amounts to violation of human rights. 15. It is contended by the petitioners that the Human Rights Commission cannot order payment of compensation and can make only recommendation to the Authority under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Section 18(a) (i) provides that where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abatement thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant as the Commission may consider necessary. Section 18(a) (i) provides that where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abatement thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant as the Commission may consider necessary. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and another v. Human Rights Commission and others [ 2015 (1) KHC 391 : 2015 (1) KLT 239 ] held that, when the Human Rights Commission recommends to the concerned Government or Authority to make payment of compensation or damages, it is with the intend to make payment by the said authority. This Court held as follows:- “15. When the Commission has specific power under S.18(a)(i) that it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages, we cannot accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Commission under S.18(a)(i) cannot direct payment of compensation. When the Commission recommends to the concerned Government or Authority to make payment of compensation or damages, it is with the intend to make payment by the said authority. The use of the word “recommend” in S.18(a)(i) does not take away the effectiveness or competency of the order for issuing direction for payment of compensation. We thus do not accept the submission that there is lack of jurisdiction for the Commission in directing payment of compensation.” In the light of the said decision, we hold that the Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction to direct payment of compensation to the 3rd respondent for violation of his human rights. We do not find any illegality or irregularity or lack of jurisdiction in Ext. P7 order passed by the Human Rights Commission. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners are granted two months' time from today to make payment of the amount ordered in Ext. P7.