Bombay High Court
Sarva Dharmiya Sushikshit ... vs Satara Municipal Council And Ors on 1 November, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
BDPPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.652 OF 2017
1] Azad Hawkers Union ]
Having its office at Room No.11 ]
Chintamani CHSL Sambaji Nagar ]
Sahar Road Near HDIL Building Opp. ]
Koldongri Andheri (E) ]
Mumbai 400 069. Through ]
Mr. Dayashankar R. Singh ]
2] Bherulal Hiralal Chaudhary ]
Aged 42 Ramcarha Wasahat ]
Room No.87, Telephone ]
Compound P. Demello Road ]
Mumbai-400 001 ]
3] Manish Mahato ]
Shri. Mira Co-operative HSG Soc. ]
Flat No.8, First Floor Akurli ]
Road Mumbai-400 010 ]
4] Krishna Murti Naidu ]
Ladwadi Jhopadpatti ]
Room No.17 Bahugenu Road ]
Princess Street, Shamaldas ]
Gandhi Road Mumbai-400 002 ]
5] Manohar Janardhan Jhore ]
B-504 Jai Sai Mahma Apt ]
Uttam Road, Near Police ]
Station Byayander (W) ]
Thane-401 101 ]..Petitioners
Versus
1/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:36 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
1] Union of India ]
Through Ministry of HSG ]
And Urban Poverty Alleviation ]
Income Tax Building ]
2] State Government ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 ]
Through Government Pleader ]
3] Municipal Corporation of Greater ]
Mumbai, Mahapalika Marg ]
Mumbai-400 001 ]
4] Dr. Ajoy Mehta ]
Municipal Commissioner & ]
Chairperson, B.M.C. Town Vending ]
Committee ] ..Respondents
ALONGWITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.98 OF 2016
1] Mr. Sanjay Nirupam,
Former Member of Parliament, Social
Activists and President of Mumbai
Regional Congress Party having his
Office at Mahanagar Palika Marg,
M. No.9821345666, Email:- [email protected]
Pan Card:- ACCPN3794J.
2] Mr. Dayashankar R. Singh
Member of Town Vending Committee
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
Mumbai & Azad Hawkers' Union
Having its office at Old Singh Nivas
Gundavali, Azad Road, Andheri (E)
Mumbai 400 069
M. No.9821754929, Email:- [email protected]
Pan Card: ANRCS1222L.
2/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:36 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
3] Asha Patil
Street Vendor
D'Silva Road, 3rd Galli
Shop No.54, Dadar (W)
Mumbai 400 028
M. No.8992195051
4] Manjur Magbul Khan
Jai Hindustan Hawkers Union
Registration No.9244
Shahid Abdul Hamid Nagar
Shell Colony, Chembur
Mumbai 400 071
5] Anis Fatima Shaikh
Street Vendor &
General Secretary
Azad Hawkers Union
Room No.6, Shivneri Hill Colony
Garib Nagar, IIT Market
Powai, Mumbai 400 0766
M. No.9619968432,
Email:- [email protected] ...Petitioners
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
2] Dr. Mr. Ajoy Mehta
Municipal Commissioner &
Chairperson, B.M.C. Town Vending
Committee
3] Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai ..Respondents
3/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:36 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2754 OF 2013
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NOS. 1731/2015, 2043/2015, 2411/2015, 1936/
2016, 2169/2016, 2747/2016, 3037/2016, 3042/2016, 3043/2016,
3055/2016, 3059/2016, 3062/2016, 3071/2016, 3085/2016,
892/2016, 2269/2017 89/ 2017 2178/2017 2281/2017, CHAMBER
SUMMONS (L) NO.140 OF 2017 IN PIL NO.98 OF 2016, WRIT
PETITION NOS.203/2017, 215/2017, 288/2017, 353/ 2017,
388/2017, 392/2017, 460/2017, WPL NO.469/2017, WRIT PETITION
NOS.470/2017, 540/2017, 542/2017, 549/2017, 551/2017,
552/2017, 559/2017, 565/2017, 567/2017, 568/2017, 570/2017,
650/2017, 652/2017, 659/2017, 666/2017, 667/2017, 675/2017,
906/2017, 909/2017, WPL NOS.1119/2017, 1138 OF 2017, WRIT
PETITION NOS.1193/2017, 1205/2017, 1210/2017, 1224/2017,
1238/2017, WPL NOS.1282 OF 2017, 527/2017 WRIT PETITION
NOS.1292/ 2017, 1296/2017, 1298/ 2017, 1299/2017, 1300/2017,
1302/2017, 1303/2017, 1304/2017, 1306/2017, 1307/2017,
1308/2017, 1310/2017, 1311/2017, 1313/2017, 1316/2017,
1320/2017, 1323/2017, 1331/2017, 1334/2017, 1335/2017,
1339/2017, 1341/2017, 1344/2017, 1347/2017, 1348/2017,
1350/2017, 1352/2017, 1353/2017, 1354/2017, 1355/2017,
1356/2017, 1359/2017, 1360/2017, 1361/2017, 1363/2017,
1367/2017, 1368/2017, 1373/2017, 1375/2017, 1378/2017,
1379/2017, 1380/2017, 1385/2017, 1389/2017, 1392/2017,
1393/2017, 1394/2017, 1396/2017, 1397/2017,1399/2017,
1400/2017, 1403/2017, 1404/2017, 1409/2017, 1412/2017,
1414/2017, 1415/2017, 1420/2017, 1423/2017, 1427/2017, 1429/
2017, 1430/2017, 1444/2017, 1445/2017, 1446/2017, 1447/2017,
1456/2017, 1462/2017, 1470/2017, 1485/2017, 1487/2017, 1488 /
2017, 1491/2017, 1494/2017, 1498/2017, 1505/2017, 1514/2017,
1527/2017, 1528/2017,1533/2017, 1552/2017, 1555/2017, 1559/
2017, 1560/2017, 1568/2017, 1569/2017, 1571/2017, 1573/2017,
4/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:36 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
1574/2017, 1575/2017, 1585/2017, 1588/2017, 1593/2017, 1595/
2017, 1598/2017, 1616/2017, 1636/2017, 1637/2017, 1639/2017,
1644/2017, WPL NO.1679/2017, WRIT PETITION NOS.1680/2017,
1681/2017, 1683/2017, 1686/2017, 1687/2017, 1690/2017,1692/
2017,1693/2017, 1723/2017, 1728/2017, 1729/2017, 1731/2017,
1733/2017, 1734/2017, 1735/2017, 1741/2017, 1742/2017,1793/
2017, 1844/2017, 1845/2017, 1853/2017, 1859/2017, WPL
NOS.1870/2017, 1874/2017, 1880/2017, 1885/2017, WRIT
PETITION NO.1885 OF 2017, WPL NOS.1886 OF 2017, 1887/2017,
WRIT PETITION NOS.1889/2017, 1907/2017, WPL NOS.1916/2017,
1921/2017,1923/2017, WRIT PETITION NO.1933 OF 2017, WPL
NOS.1962/2017, 1963/2017, 1971/2017, 1973/2017, 1982/2017,
1992/2017, 2004/2017, 2005/2017, 2040/2017, 2078/2017, 2264/
2017, 2494/2017, 2541/2017, WPL Nos.2801/17, 2802/17, 2803/17,
2805/17, 2810/17, 2819/17, 2825/17, 2850/17, 2853/17, 2854/17,
2860/17.
-------
Mr. B. A. Desai, Senior Counsel along with Mr. Vishal Kanade and Ms.
Vaishali Bhikule. Ms. Dipty Sawlani i/by Mr. Manmohan Rao
Advocate For the Petitioners in PIL/98/2016 and WP/652/2017,
WP/2747/2016, WP/3037/2016, WP/3042/2016, WP/3043/2016,
WP/3055/2016,WP/3059/2016, WP/3062/2016, WP/3071/2016,
WP/89/2017,WP/203/2017, WP/388/2017, WP/392/2017,
WPL/469/2017, WP/470/2017, WP/540/2017, WP/542/2017,
WP/549/2017, WP/551/2017, WP/552/2017,WP/559/2017,
WP/565/2017, WP/567/2017, WP/568/2017, WP/570/2017,
WP/650/2017, WP/659/2017,WP/666/2017, WP/667/2017,
WP/675/2017. WP/906/2017, WP/909/2017, WPL/1119/2017,
WPL/1138/2017, WP/1193/2017, WP/1205/2017, WP/1210/2017,
WP/1224/2017, WP/1238/17, WP/1323/2017, WP/1339/2017,
WP/1341/2017, WP/1350/2017, WP/1352/2017, WP/1361/2017,
WP/1399/2017, WP/1403/2017, WP/1404/2017, WP/1409/2017,
WP/1412/2017, WP/1414/2017, WP/1415/2017, WP/1420/2017,
WP/1423/2017WP/1427/2017, WP/1429/2017,
WP/1505/2017,WP/1514/2017,WP/1527/2017,WP/1528/2017,W?
1533/2017, WP/1555/2017WP/1569/2017,WP/1571/2017,
WP/1575/2017, WP/1588/2017, WP/1636/2017, WP/1637/2017,
WP/1639/2017, WPL/1679/2017, WP/1686/2017, WP/1687/2017,
5/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:36 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
WP/1692/2017, WP/1693/2017, WP/1723/2017,WP/1728/2017,
WP/1729/2017, wp/1731/2017, WP/1733/2017WP/1734/2017,
WP/1735/2017, WP/1741/2017,
WP/1742/2017WP/1793/2017,WP/1844/2017,WP/1845/2017,WP/1
853/2017,
WP/1859/2017,WPL/1885/2017,WP/1886/2017,WPL/1887/2017WP
L/1889/2017, WP/1907/2017,WPL/1916/2017,
WPL/1921/2017WP/1923/2017, WPL/1962/2017, WPL/1963/2017,
WPL/1971/2017, WPL/1973/2017, WPL/1992/2017,
WPL/2004/2017, WPL/2005/2017,WP/2040/2017, WPL/2541/2017,
WPL Nos.2801/17, 2802/17, 2803/17, 2805/17, 2810/17, 2819/17,
2825/17, 2850/17, 2853/17, 2854/17, 2860/17.
Mr. Vishal Kanade along with Ms. Divya Shah and Mr. Harsh Trivedi
i/b Divya Shah & Co, Adv for Petitioners in WP/1307/2017,
WP/1292/2017, WP/1296/2017, WP/1298/2017, WP/1299/2017,
WP/1300/2017, WP/1302/2017, WP/1303/2017, WP/1304/2017,
WP/1306/2017, WP/1308/2017, WP/1310/2017, WP/1311/2017,
WP/1316/2017,
WP/1320/2017, WP/1313/2017, WP/1331/2017,
WP/1334/2017,WP/1335/2017, WP/1344/2017, WP/1347/2017,
WP/1348/2017, WP/1353/2017, WP/1355/2017, WP/1354/2017,
WP/1356/2017,
WP/1359/2017, WP/1360/2017, WP/1363/2017,
WP/1367/2017,WP/1368/2017, WP/1373/2017, WP/1375/2017,
WP/1378/2017, WP/1379/2017, WP/1380/2017,WP/1385/2017,
WP/1389/2017,WP/1392/2017, WP/1393/2017, WP/1394/2017
WP/1396/2017, WP/1397/2017, WP/1400/2017, WP/1430/2017,
WP/1444/2017, WP/1445/2017, WP/1446/2017, WP/1447/2017
WP/1456/2017,
WP/1462/2017, WP/1470/2017, WP/1485/2017, WP/1487/2017,
WP/1488/2017, WP/1491/2017, WP/1494/2107, WP/1498/2017,
WP/1552/2017,WP/1559/2017, WP/1560/2017, WP/1568/2017,
WP/1569/2017
WP/1573/2017, WP/1574/2017, WP/1585/2017,WP/1593/2017,
WP/1595/2017, WP/1598/2017, WP/1616/2017,WP/1644/2017,
WP/1680/2017, WP/1681/2017, WP/1683/2017,WP/1690/2017,
WP/1933/2017,
6/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:36 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Ms. Priyanka Kothari along with Ms. Usha Chandrashekhar i/by Ms.
Suvarna Joshi for the Applicant in CHWL/140/2017 in PIL/98/2016
and CHWL/136/2017 in WP/388/2017.
Mr. Ram U. Singh for the Petitioner in WP/2754/2013,
WP/1731/2015, WP/2043/2015, WP/1936/2016, WP/2411/2015,
WPL/1874/2017 and WPL/1870/2017, wp/1078/2016.
Ms. Firdaus Moosa i/by Mr. Prakash Mahadik for the Petitioner in
WPL/2494/2017.
Mr. M. M. Vashi, Senior counsel along with Ms. Aparna Deokar I/by
M/s. M. P. Vashi and Associates for the Petitioner in WP/1885/2017.
Mr. Susmit Phatale along with Mr. Chinmaya Acharya , Jaswandi
Khatu for the Petitioner in WPL/527/2017 and WP/2078/2017.
Mr.S.S.Redkar, Adv for Petitioner in WP/2264/17,
Mr. Induprakash K. Tripathi along with Ms. Bhagyashri Gawas i/b Mr
C.K. Tripathi for the Petitioners in WP/2169/2016, WP/892/2016,
WP/2269/2017, WP/2178/2017, WP/353/2017, WP/288/2017 AND
WP/215/2017.
Mr. Ajay Tripathi along with Mr. Sachin Rawool for the Petitioner in
conpw/76/2015 and conpw/4/2015.
Mr. Satish Talekar along with Mr. Vinod P. Sangvikar, Ms. Madhavi
Ayyapan i/by M/s. Talekar and Associates for the Petitioner in
WPL/1282/2017
Ms.Gayatri Singh, Senior Counsel along Mr. Kranti L.C. a/w Mr.
Sangram L.Chinnappa and Mrs. Ronita Bhattacharya for the petitioner
in WP/460/2017
7/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:36 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Ms. Neeta Karnik for the Petitioner in WPL/1982/2017,
WPL/1880/2017 and WPL/2281/2017
Mr. Jaydeep Deo for the Respondent No.1 in WP/652/2017
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Counsel along with Mr. Joel Carlos
and Mr. Rohan S. Mirpury, Mr. Raviraj S. Shinde, Ms.Vandana
Mahadik and Ms. K. H. Mastakar,Ms. Sheetal Mane and Ms. Pallavi
Thakkar , Mr. Sagar Patil and Ms. Yamuna Parekh for the Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 in PIL/98/2016 and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in
WP/652/2017 AND WPL/2005/2017, WP/460/2017,
WPL/2078/2017, WP/1731/2017,
Ms.Vandana Mahadik and Ms. K. H. Mastakar,Ms. Sheetal Mane and
Ms. Pallavi Thakkar , Mr. Sagar Patil and Ms. Yamuna Parekh for the
Respondent in WP/2043/2015, WP/2411/2015, NMW/325/2016,
WP/1936/2016, WP/2169/2016, WP/3037/2016,
WP/3042/2016,WP/3043/2016,
WP/3055/2016,WP/3059/2016,WP/3062/2016, WP/3071/2016,
WP/89/2017, WP/203/2017. WP/215/2017, WP/288/2017,
WP/353/2017, WP/ 388/2017, WP/392/2017,
WP/460/2017,WPL/469/2017, WP/470/2017, WP/540/2017,
WP/542/2017, WP/549/2017, WP/551/2017, WP/552/2017,
WP/559/2017, WP/565/2017, WP/567/2017, WP/568/2017,
WP/570/2017, WP/650/2017,WP/659/2017,WP/666/2017,
WP/667/2017, WP/675/2017, WP/906/2017, WP/909/2017,
WPL/1119/2017, WPL/1138/2017, WP/1193/2017, WP/1205/2017
WP/1210/2017, WP/1224/2017,WP/1238/17, WPL/1282/2017,
WP/1292/2017, WP/1296/2017, WP/1298/2017,WP/1299/2017,
WP/1300/2017, WP/1302/2017, WP/1303/2017,WP/1304/2017,
WP/1306/2017, WP/1307/2017, WP/1308/2017,WP/1310/2017,
WP/1311/2017, WP/1313/2017, WP/1316/2017,
WP/1320/2017,WP/1323/2017, WP/1331/2017,WP/1334/2017,
WP/1339/2017, WP/1341/2017,WP/1344/2017, WP/1347/2017,
WP/1348/2017, WP/1350/2017, WP/1352/2017, WP/1353/2017,
WP/1354/2017,WP/1355/2017, WP/1356/2017, WP/1359/2017,
WP/1360/2017, WP/1361/2017, WP/1363/2017, WP/1367/2017
8/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:36 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
WP/1368/2017, WP/1373/2017, WP/1375/2017, WP/1378/2017,
WP/1379/2017, WP/1380/2017, WP/1385/2017, WP/1389/2017
WP/1392/2017, WP/1393/2017, WP/1394/2017, WP/1396/2017,
WP/1397/2017,WP/1399/2017, WP/1400/2017,WP/1403/2017,
WP/1404/2017, WP/1409/2017, WP/1412/2017, WP/1414/2017,
WP/1415/2017, WP/1420/2017, WP/1423/2017, WP/1427/2017,
WP/1429/2017, WP/1430/2017, WP/1444/2017, WP/1445/2017,
WP/1446/2017, WP/1456/2017, WP/1462/2017, WP/1470/2017,
WP/1485/2017, WP/1487/2017, WP/1488/2017, WP/1491/2017,
WP/1491/2017, WP/1494/2107, WP/1498/2017, WP/1505/2017
WP/1514/2017, WP/1527/2017,WP/1528/2017, WP/1552/2017
WP/1555/2017, WP/1559/2017, WP/1560/2017, WP/1568/2017
WP/1569/2017, WP/1571/2017,WP/1573/2017, WP/1574/2017,
WP/1575/2017, WP/1585/2017, WP/1588/2017, WP/1593/2017,
WP/1595/2017, WP/1598/2017, WP/1616/2017, WP/1636/2017,
WP/1637/2017, WP/1639/2017, WP/1644/2017, WPL/1679/2017,
WP/1680/2017, WP/1681/2017, WP/1683/2017, WP/1686/2017,
WP/1687/2017, WP/1690/2017, WP/1692/2017,WP/1693/2017,
WP/1723/2017, WP/1728/2017, WP/1729/2017, WP/1733/2017,
WP/1734/2017, WP/1735/2017, WP/1741/2017, WP/1742/2017,
WP/1793/2017, WP/1844/2017, WP/1845/2017, WP/1853/2017,
WP/1859/2017, WPL/1870/2017, WPL/1874/2017,
WPL/1880/2017,
WPL/1885/2017, WP/1885/2017, WP/1886/2017, WPL/1887/2017
WP/1907/2017, WPL/1916/2017, WP/1923/2017,WP/1933/2017,
WP/2264/17, WPL/2541/2017, WPL Nos.2801/17, 2802/17,
2803/17, 2805/17, 2810/17, 2819/17, 2825/17, 2850/17, 2853/17,
2854/17, 2860/17.
Mr. Sanjeev Sawant for M.C.G.M. for the Respondents-M.C.G.M. IN
WP/559/2017.
Mr. Ram S. Apte, Senior Counsel and Mr. J. Reis, Senior Counsel and
Mr.Joel Carlos along with Mr. Rohan Mirpuri and Mr.Raviraj Shinde,
Ms. K.H.Mastakar, Ms. Sheetal Mane for the Respondents - MCGM in
WP/1907/2017
Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni,Advocate General along with Mr.Abhay L. Patki,
9/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:37 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Addl. Government Pleader, for the state for the Respondent in
WP/652/2017
Ms.Geeta Shastri, Addl. Government Pleader for the state in
PIL/98/2016, WP/1456/2017, WP/1491/2017, CHSWL/140/2017 in
PIL/98/2016
Mr. Abhay Patki, Addl. Government Pleader for the state for the
Respondent in WP/652/2017, WPL/2494/2017. WPL/1282/2017,
WP/1494/2107, WP/1559/2017, WP/1385/2017, WP/3042/2016,
WP/3043/2016, WP/1205/2017, WP/650/2017, WP/909/2017,
WP/460/2017, WPL/1874/2017, WPL/1884/2017, WPL/1885/2017.
WPL/1916/2017, WPL/1962/2017, WPL/1982/2017 AND
WPL/2004/2017, WP/906/2017, WPL/1138/2017, WP/2541/2017
WPL/1923/2017.
Ms. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader along with Ms.Deepali
Patankar-Honorary Assistant to Government Pleader for the state for
the Respondent in WP/1356/2017, WP/1470/2017, WP/1485/2017,
WP/3062/2016. WP/3059/2016, WP/1193/2017, WP/565/2017 AND
WP/567/2017
Mr. Milind More, Addl. Government Pleader for the state for the
respondent in WP/1303/2017, WP/1488/2017, WP/1498/2017 AND
WP/659/2017
Mr. U. S. Upadhyay, AGP-state for the respondent in WP/1639/2017
WP/2747/2016, WP/1344/2017, WP/1430/2017, WP/1316/2017,
WP/89/2017, WP/1636/2017, WP/2025/2015 AND WPL/1880/2017
Mr. Rajiv J. Mane-AGP-State for the Respondent in WP/1731/2015,
WP/1354/2017, WP/1367/2017, WP/1313/2017, WP/1361/2017,
WP/1350/2017, WP/2411/2015.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan-AGP-state for the Respondents in WPL/1870/2017,
WP/1588/2017, WP/1368/2017, WP/1616/2017,
WP/1683/2017,WP/1404/2017, WPL/1886/2017, WPL/1889/2017,
10/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:37 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
WPL/1921/2017, WPL/1962/2017, WPL/2040/2017 AND
WPL/1731/2017
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar for the AGP-state for the Respondents
in WP/2169/2016, WP/1734/2017, WP/1360/2017, WP/1397/2017,
WP/3071/2016, WP/540/2017, WP/549/2017, WP/1728/2017,
WPL/1688/2017 AND WP/1394/2017, WP/2264/2017.
Mr. Mohit P. Jadhav, AGP state for the Respondent in WP/667/2017,
WP/1427/2017, WP/1462/2017, WP/1552/2017 AND
WP/1692/2017, WP/2005/2017.
Mr. Hemant Haryan, AGP-state for the Respondents in
WP/1414/2017, WP/1793/2017, WP/1853/2017, WP/1487/2017,
WP/1308/2017, WP/1320/2017, WP/666/2017, WP/559/2017,
WP/568/2017 AND WP/1844/2017, WP/1238/2017,
Mr. Kedar Dighe,AGP-state for the Respondent in WP/1575/2017,
WP/1936/2016, WP/1302/2017, WP/1593/2017, WP/570/2017,
WP/1907/2017, WP/1300/2017, WP/1224/2017 AND
WP/3085/2016
Mr. Dushyant Kumar AGP-state for the Respondent in WP/1415/2017,
WP/1644/2017, WP/1334/2017, WP/203/2017. WPL/469/2017,
WP/388/2017 and WP/1514/2017
Mr. M. A. Sayed-AGP-state for the Respondent in WP/1378/2017,
WP/1573/2017, WP/1400/2017, WP/1505/2017 AND
WP/1528/2017
Mr. Himanshu Takke,AGP-state for the Respondents in
WP/1637/2017, WP/1307/2017, WP/1933/2017, WP/1389/2017,
WP/1729/2017 AND WPL/1887/2017
Mr. Kunal Bhanage, AGP for the state for the Respondent in
11/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:37 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
WP/1687/2017, WP/1555/2017, WP/1560/2017, WP/3037/2016,
WP/1845/2017, WPL/1963/2017, WPL/1973/2017 AND
WPL/1992/2017
Mr. Shyamrao B. Gore-AGP-state for the state in WP/1299/2017,
WP/1585/2017, WP/1568/2017, WP/1310/2017, WP/470/2017,
WP/1571/2017 AND WP/1741/2017.
Mr. L. T. Satelkar, AGP for the state in WP/1690/2017,
WP/1447/2017,
WP/1363/2017, WP/1335/2017, WP/1339/2017 AND
WP/1341/2017
Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP, state for the Respondent in WP/1569/2017,
WP/1598/2017, WP/1396/2017,` WP/1352/2017, WP/3055/2016,
WP/392/2017, WP/1723/2017, WP/1733/2017
Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP-state for the Respondent in WP/1393/2017,
WP/1311/2017, WP/1306/2017, WP/1735/2017 AND
WP/1420/2017
Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP,state for the Respondent in
WP/1680/2017, WP/1681/2017, WP/1379/2017, WP/1533/2017,
WP/1527/2017 AND WPL/1119/2017
Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP-state for the Respondent in
WP/1574/2017, WP/1392/2017, WP/1355/2017, WP/1399/2017
AND WP/1409/2017
Mr. G. W. Mattos, AGP-state for the Respondent in WP/1375/2017,
WP/1348/2017, WP/1347/2017
Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, Addl. Government Pleader for the state for the
Respondent in WP/1210/2017
Mr. Kaushal Trivedi, AGP-state for the Respondent in WP/1686/2017,
12/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:37 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
WP/1859/2017, WP/1292/2017 and WP/1595/2017,
Mr. N. R. Bubna for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WPL/1962/2017
and WPL/1963/2017
Ms. Shivani Kande for the NMW/325/2016 IN WP/523/2011
ALONGWITH APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.10080 OF 2017
All India Trade Union Congress
Through its Vice President
Uday Madanmohan Choudhari ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6681 OF 2017
Sarva Dharmiya Sushikshit Berojgar
Hawkers Sanghatna Maharashtra ..Petitioner
Versus
Satara Municipal Council and others ..Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6683 OF 2017
Savitribai Phule Vyavasaik
Kalyankari Saunstha ..Petitioner
Versus
Panvel Municipal Corporation and others ..Respondents
Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sangram Chinnappa i/by
Kranti L. C. for the Petitioners.
Mr. K. P. Shah for the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.6681 of
2017.
13/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:37 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye a/w Mr. Milind Prabhune for the Respondent
No.1 in Writ Petition No.6683 of 2017.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent-State.
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8983 OF 2017
Navi Mumbai Hawkers & Workers
Union and another ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents
Mr. Avinash R. Belge for the Petitioners.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 6.
Mr. Sandip V. Marne for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7276 OF 2015
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7277 OF 2015
Taparidharak & Feriwala Kalyankari
Sanstha, Kalamboli,
Through its President,
Shri. Atmaram Namdeo Patil ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents
None for the Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
14/118
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:08:37 :::
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.4622 OF 2017
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6771 OF 2017
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.9665 OF 2017
ALONGWITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3063 OF 2016
Thane Zilla (Maharashtra) Hawkers Union ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents
Mrs. Neeta Karnik for the Petitioners.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. N. R. Bubna for the
Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
Date on which the judgment is reserved : 29/09/2017
Date on which the judgment is pronounced: 01/11/2017
JUDGMENT: (Per B. R. Gavai, J.)
1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive
service. Heard, by consent of the parties.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
2] All these Petitions are either by the Associations of Hawkers or
Hawkers in their individual capacity, from various parts of the State,
within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat of this Court,
including the City of Greater Mumbai. The Petitioners have initially
approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including the relief to
restrain all Municipal Commissioners and Chief Officers and local
authorities all over Maharashtra from evicting, imposing fines and
harassing the existing street vendors as on 01/05/2014 from the
places/sites where they are carrying vending profession as street
vendors.
3] Petitioners have thereafter amended the Petition and have also
challenged the Order issued by Respondent No.1 dated 01/12/2015
purportedly under Section 39 of the Street Vendors (Protection of
Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (Hereinafter
referred to as "the said Act" for brief).
4] Petitioners have also challenged the validity of Rule 15 of the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending (Maharashtra) Rules, 2016 (For short "the said Rules") being
ultra vires of the said Act.
5] Petitioners have also challenged the scheme purportedly framed
under the provisions of Section 38 of the said Act vide Government
Resolution dated 09/01/2017.
6] Petitioners have also challenged the Government Resolution
dated 09/01/2017, which has issued directions for appointment of
first Vending Committee without representation to vendors and
thereafter Election of Representatives for existing street vendors.
7] Petitioners have also challenged the Registered Voters List, as
published under the provisions of the said Rules. Prayer is also made,
directing the Respondent - State not to publish the Scheme under
Section 38 of the said Act without consulting the statutorily
constituted Town Vending Committee (For short "TVC").
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
8] Several interim reliefs have also been prayed in the Petitions, in
effect directing the Respondents - Authorities not to take any coercive
steps against the hawkers / vendors, who are carrying on their
business in various Cities in the State.
9] We have extensively heard Mr. B.A. Desai, learned Senior
Counsel, Mrs. Gayatri Singh, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.M.
Vashi, learned Senior Counsel and also Mrs. Neeta Karnik, Mr. R.U.
Singh, Mr. Vishal Kanade, Mr. Firdoz Musa, Mr. Avinash Belge,
learned Counsel for the Petitioners. We have also heard Mr. Sakhare,
learned Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of Respondent -
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (For short "MCGM") and
Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Advocate General for the State.
CONTENTIONS
10] Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel who led the arguments on
behalf of the Petitioners, submitted that various judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and now the said Act, have recognized rights of
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
street vendors to be a right to life emanating from Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that a
perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act itself
would reveal that the said Act has been enacted to recognize rights of
street vendors as a source of self- employment. He submitted that
right to street vending serves two purposes viz (i) it provides self-
employment to vast majority of unemployed people and (ii) it enables
majority of population to buy goods at affordable prices at convenient
vending places. He submitted that the said Act has been enacted so as
to give effect to National Policy of Urban Street Vendors, 2009, which
aims at securing right of the citizens to have adequate means of
livelihood as enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 38(2), 39(a), 39(b)
and 41 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the said
enactment aims at fostering a congenial environment for the urban
street vendors to carry out their activities, without harassment from
any quarter.
11] The learned Senior Counsel further submits that Division Bench
of this Court in Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal and Ors V/s Municipal
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others1 has categorically held that
in view of the said Act coming into force, the directions issued by the
Apex Court from time to time, in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union
have ceased to apply and all existing street vendors as on 01/05/2014,
would be entitled to protection against eviction and relocation in view
of the provisions of Section 2 and Section 3 of the said Act. The
learned Senior Counsel submits that all the Petitioners or members of
the Petitioners - Associations are having valid documents to show that
they have been carrying out their vending activities on or prior to
01/05/2014 and, as such, they are duly protected in view of the
provisions of the said Act. He submitted that in spite of this legal
position, Municipal Commissioner of MCGM as well as Municipal
Commissioners and Chief Officers of other Municipal Corporations and
Municipal Councils are harassing vendors / hawkers and trying to
evict them, though, as per law, they are entitled to continue their
vending business. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted
that such an act is totally illegal.
12] The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Rule 15 of the
1 2015(6) AIR Bom R 609
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
said Rules, which empowers the Municipal Commissioner or Chief
Officer to publish Voters List of Registered Street Vendors, is also ultra
vires the provisions of clause (c ) of Section 2 of the said Act. He
submitted that, if a correct interpretation is to be placed on the
provisions of the said Act, the Voters' List is to be published by the
Local Authority and the Local Authority cannot be permitted to
delegate the said power to the Municipal Commissioner. He submitted
that the Scheme which is published by the State Government vide
Government Resolution dated 01/12/2015 ("the said Scheme") is also
in contravention of Section 38 of the said Act. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the Scheme cannot be framed unless there is
consultation with the Local Authority and the TVC. The learned
Senior Counsel submitted that, as a matter of fact, TVC itself has not
been established and, as such, there can be no question of consultation
with TVC.
13] The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that an attempt is
being made by the Respondents to form truncated TVCs having
members, who are either ex-officio members and other nominated
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
members, so as to keep out members representing the street vendors.
He submitted that unless 40% of the members of the TVC
representing street vendors are elected by street vendors themselves,
the constitution of TVC is not complete. It is submitted that the
Government Resolution dated 09/01/2017 (hereinafter referred to as
"the said G.R."), which gives certain instructions with regard to
implementation of the Scheme and permits TVC without having
representation of vendors, to conduct the survey is totally illegal.
14] Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel submitted that perusal of the
said Act itself would reveal that functioning of the TVC is paramount
and unless the TVC is formed, neither the Plan as required under
Section 21 nor a Scheme as required under Section 38 can be
prepared. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even the
survey which is required to be conducted under Section 3, is required
to be conducted by TVC. The learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that unless TVC is established, neither there can be survey
nor preparation of plan nor framing of a scheme. The learned Senior
Counsel further submitted that the Order passed by Respondent No.1
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
purportedly under the provisions of Section 39 is also without
jurisdiction.
15] Mr. Desai, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
after the said Act has come into effect, the 'non-vending zones' have
ceased to exist and all the hawkers in the Cities are entitled to carry
out their vending activities anywhere in the Cities, if they were
carrying on such activities as on 01/05/2014. Mr. Desai relied on the
judgment of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition
No.18397 of 2014 alongwith companion matter dated 30/09/2015
and on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court
in WP (C ) No.33114 of 2014 (L) dated 05/03/2015 and various
interlocutory orders passed by various Benches of this Court, in
support of the said proposition.
16] All other learned Counsel, in effect, have made similar
arguments, as have been advanced by Mr. Desai, learned Senior
Counsel.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
17] Mr. Sakhare, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
MCGM, submitted that the Respondent - MCGM, in order to give
effect to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. MCGM2 dated 09/09/2013 had
formed TVC as per directions of the Apex Court. He submitted that in
the TVC which was formed under the Chairmanship of the
Commissioner of MCGM, there were 30 members. Out of 30
members, 12 were representatives of various Association of hawkers /
vendors, 11 were official members representing the Corporation,
MMRDA, Police Authorities, Railways etc and rest were representatives
of Residents Welfare Association, NGOs, Lawyers, Town Planners,
Retail Traders Welfare Association, Banks etc. He submitted that
various meetings of the said TVC were held on 23/01/2014,
15/02/2014, 15/04/2014 and 07/07/2014. He submitted that in one
of these meetings dated 07/07/2014, it was resolved to form 241
teams for conducting survey of street vendors. The said teams were to
consist of Officer of the Corporation from Licensing / Encroachment
Department, representatives of Vendors' Associations, representatives
of NGOs / Residents' Association / Traders' Association / Security
2 2013 (6) BCR 481
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Guard of the Corporation and local Police Officer. He submitted that
after following the requisite procedure as was detailed out by the
TVC, entire survey has been conducted. He submitted that the total
number of applications that were issued for registration were 1,28,443
out of which 99,435 applicants were found to be eligible in the said
survey.
18] The learned Senior Counsel for the MCGM further submitted
that perusal of the said Act, would show that it does not provide for
quorum for conducting meetings of the TVC. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted that, however, in view of the provisions of sub-rule
(2) of Rule 22 of the said Rules, all the Resolutions of TVC are
required to be passed by two-thirds of the members present and
voting. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that out of 20
members, five are official members and seven are required to be
nominated by the State Government. He submitted that the process of
nominating those seven members has already commenced. The
learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that if 12 members of the
TVC are permitted to function, the mandate of Rule 22(2) shall stand
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
followed and, as one time measure, TVC, which is consisting of
official members and nominated members without there being
representatives of street vendors, should be permitted to function. He
submitted that if such a course is not permitted then the entire Act
would become unenforceable. Relying on the judgment of N.
Kannadasan vs. Ajoy Khose and Others3, the learned Senior Counsel
submitted that if a plain meaning assigned to section, results in
absurdity or anomaly, literal meaning would not be applied and resort
should be taken to purposive construction so as to give complete and
effective meaning to the statutory provision. He submitted that if the
Act is to be implemented as it is, then very purpose for which the Act
is enacted i.e for protecting the right of street vendors on one hand
and also for balancing the right of the citizens who are using the roads
and pavements on the other hand, cannot be given effect to. He
therefore submitted that it will have to be read into the provisions of
the Act, that the TVC consisting of five official and seven nominated
members, will have to be permitted to function without there being
a representation of the vendors. He also relied on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of American Home Products Corporation vs.
3 (2009) 7 SCC
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd and another4 and in the case of State of M.P.
vs. M/s. Azad Bharat Finance Co. and another 5 in support his
submission.
19] Mr. Sakhare also relied on the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vaiso Jain vs. NDMC and
Anr passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3574 of 2011 dated
25/05/2011 to counter the argument of Mr. Desai, that after the said
Act has come into effect, the non-vending zones have ceased to exist
and all the hawkers in the Cities are entitled to carry out their vending
activities anywhere in the Cities, if they were carrying on such
activities as on 01/05/2014. He relied on the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vyapari Kalyan Mandal
Main Pushpa and Anr. vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.
dated 03.07.2017 delivered in W.P.(C)2556/2015 for the same
purpose.
20] Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Advocate General appearing on
4 AIR 1986 SC 137
5 AIR 1967 SC 276
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
behalf of the State, has made similar arguments, as have been
advanced by Mr. Sakhare, the learned Senior Counsel for MCGM.
JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE ISSUE
21] For appreciating the controversy in issue, we will have to go
through various judgments of Their Lordships of the Apex Court.
Bombay Hawkers Union and Others had approached Their Lordships
of the Apex Court, in a Petition under Article 32, claiming therein that
they have fundamental right to carry on their business and that the
Respondents including the then Bombay Municipal Corporation were
unlawfully interfering with that right. It was claimed that the
Respondents including the BMC arbitrarily refused to grant or renew
license for hawkers, which rendered the hawkers liable to be removed
alongwith their goods, from the places where they were doing their
business. Petitioners in that case had asked for a declaration that
provisions of Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3) and 497 of the BMC Act
were void since they confer upon the respondents an arbitrary and
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
unguided power, to refuse to grant or renew licenses for hawking and
to remove the goods without affording an opportunity to be heard, to
the hawkers.
22] It appears that during the pendency of the said Petition before
Their Lordships of the Apex Court, several suggestions were made to
explore the possibility of evolving satisfactory solution to the problem
faced by both sides. It further appears that a consensus emerged
between the parties that the Municipal Commissioner should frame a
scheme, for regulating the grant of licences to hawkers and for
creating hawkers' zones wherever necessary. It also further appears
that in pursuance thereof, several meetings were held of the Hawkers
Committee, consisting of the Officers of the then BMC and the
Representatives of Hawkers, of which the Mayor of the Bombay was
the Chairman. Initially, the Scheme was prepared by the Municipal
Commissioner. However, since the Hawkers' Union did not respond to
the proposed Scheme, no decision could be taken thereon. Their
Lordships of the Apex Court, therefore, passed an order dated
05/08/1983, specifying therein that if the members of the Hawkers'
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Committee do not come to any decision by consensus, the
Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corporation will be free to frame
a scheme. In pursuance of the order passed by Their Lordships of the
Apex Court, a meeting was held to discus the proposal prepared by the
Municipal Commissioner. However, no agreement could be reached
on the same. It further appears that on 23/11/1983 an application for
directions was filed by the Petitioners, praying for directions to the
Municipal Commissioner to formulate a scheme for the licensing of
hawkers in Greater Bombay by creating hawking zones. It appears
that, finally, the scheme was prepared by the Municipal Commissioner
vide Order dated 30/09/1983. It will be relevant to refer to the
salient features of the said Scheme, which read thus :-
"The following restrictions/conditions shall be imposed on such hawkers:
(i) They should do their hawking business only on an area of
1 Mt. × 1 Mt. on the footpath wherever it exists or on the
extreme sides of the carriage way, in such a manner that the
vehicular and pedestrian traffic is not obstructed and access
to shops and residences is not blocked.
(ii) They should not put up any stall or place any table, stand
or such other thing or erect any type of structure whatsoever
on the pitch on which they are conducting their hawking
business nor should they hawk on handcarts. They should
also not put up any cloth, plastic sheet, chaddar, tarpaulin
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
etc. as shelter.
(iii) They should not hawk within 100 metres from any
place of worship, holy shrine, educational institution and
general hospital and within the periphery of 150 metres
from any Municipal or other market.
(iv) They should not create any noise for attracting the
public/customers.
(v) They should not hawk any cooked food articles, cut fruits etc.
(vi) They should do their hawking business only between 7
a.m. and 9 p.m. on the day on which the prescribed daily
fee is recovered. In other words, payment of the prescribed
daily fee shall not be deemed to authorise them to do their
hawking business beyond the aforesaid hours.
(vii) They should extend full co-operation to Municipal
conservancy staff for cleaning the streets and footpaths and
also to other Municipal staff for carrying out any Municipal
work. They should also cooperate with other Government
and public agencies such as the B.E.S.T. Undertaking,
Bombay Telephones, B.S.E.S. Ltd., etc. for laying cables
or for doing any repair/development work.
(viii) Recovery of prescribed daily fee shall not bestow on
them any right whatsoever over the space used by them for
hawking on the day on which the fee is recovered."
The said Scheme came up for consideration before Their Lordships in
the case of Bombay Hawkers' Union and Others vs. Bombay Municipal
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Corporation and Others6. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 10
of the said Judgment which reads thus :-
"10. We have considered carefully the eight conditions
mentioned above, subject to which the Commissioner
proposes to grant licences to the hawkers. No exception can
be taken to conditions (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii) and (viii) except
that conditions (ii) and (viii) require a little clarification. The
first part of condition (ii) beginning with the words "They
should not put up any stall" and ending with the words "nor
should they hawk on handcarts" may stand. But, the second
part of that condition should not be construed to mean that the
hawkers will not be entitled even to protect their wares
against the sun, rain, wind and so on, by spreading a cloth,
plastic sheet, chaddar, tarpaulin etc. The object of that
condition is to ensure that no construction is put up and no
handcarts are used. Insofar as condition (viii) is concerned, all
that it should be understood to mean is that the fact that a
daily fee is charged will not confer upon the hawker the right
to do his business at any particular place. That is because, the
daily fee is a kind of licence fee to do business; it is not a fee
charged for doing business at any particular place. The
Commissioner will, therefore, be free to impose conditions
(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii) and (viii) while granting licences to the
hawkers in the Hawking Zones, after making the necessary
clarifications in conditions (ii) and (viii). Condition (v) is an
unreasonable restriction on the hawkers' right to carry on their
trade or business and must be dropped. There are several
working families in Bombay, belonging to different strata of
society, which depend upon the food supplied by hawkers.
We do not see any valid reason why hawkers should not be
allowed to sell cooked food, cut fruits and the like. That will,
of course, not confer upon them the licence to sell adulterated
or unhygienic food. They shall have to comply, like any other
vendor of food, with the Municipal licensing regulations and
the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954. Lastly, the hours of business mentioned in condition
(vi) should be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. instead of 7 a.m, to 9
p.m. In cities like Bombay, nights are quite young at 10 p.m."
6 (1985) 3 SCC 528
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
It could thus be seen that Their Lordships did not find it necessary to
interfere with most of the conditions which formed part of the
Scheme. Their Lordships found that insofar as condition No.(ii) is
concerned, which even prevented the hawkers putting up any cloth,
plastic sheet, chaddar, tarpaulin etc as shelter against the rain, wind
and sun, could not be approved. Their Lordships further found that
Condition No. (v) which prevented hawking in food articles, cut fruits
etc was also unreasonable inasmuch as there were several working
families in Bombay belonging to different strata of the Society, which
depended upon the food supplied by hawkers. However, Their
Lordships observed that such hawkers shall have to comply, like any
other vendor of food, with the Municipal licensing regulations and the
provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Insofar
as condition No. (vi) is concerned, Their Lordships observed that hours
of business in the said condition should be from 7 a.m to 10 p.m
instead of 7 a.m to 9 p.m. Insofar as Hawking and Non-Hawking
Zones are concerned, Their Lordships observed thus :-
"11. Insofar as Hawking and Non-Hawking Zones are concerned,
the Commissioner should adopt the following modalities:
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
(a) As far as possible, there should be one Hawking Zone
for every two contiguous Municipal Wards in Greater
Bombay.
(b) The Non-Hawking Zones may be fixed by the
Municipal Commissioner in his discretion, in consultation
with the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
(c) In areas other than the Non-Hawking Zones, licences
should be granted to the hawkers to do their business on
payment of the prescribed fee. That will be without
prejudice to the right of the Commissioner to extend the
limits of the Non-Hawking Zones in the interests of public
health, sanitation, safety, public convenience and the like.
(d) Hawking licences should not be refused in the Hawking
Zones except for good reasons. The discretion not to grant
a hawking licence in the Hawking Zone should be
exercised by the Commissioner reasonably and in public
interest.
(e) In future, before making any alteration in the scheme,
the Commissioner should take into confidence all public
interests, including the hawkers, the Commissioner of
Police and representative associations of the public such as
the one which appeared before us. Hawkers have the right
to do their business, subject to reasonable restrictions in
the interests of the general public. The Police
Commissioner is in the best position to speak about the
law and order problem as well as the traffic hazards
created by street trading. The general public has a stake in
showing how and why the hawking trade should be
regulated. The power conferred upon the Commissioner by
Section 313-A of the Act to grant licences to hawkers is in
the nature of a discretion coupled with a duty. It is
therefore essential that the said power should be exercised
by consulting all concerned interests and guided by
considerations of what is in the interests of the general
public. The scheme framed by the Commissioner will have
a binding effect on all concerned. The scheme shall be
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
framed, as far as possible, before October 31, 1985."
(Emphasis supplied)
It could thus be seen that Their Lordships empowered the Municipal
Commissioner in consultation with Bombay Municipal Corporation to
fix Non-Hawking Zones. It could further be seen that Their Lordships
further recognized right of the Commissioner to extend the limits of
the Non-Hawking Zone in the interest of public health, sanitation,
safety, public convenience and the like. It could further be seen that
Their Lordships observed that while exercising power under Section
313-A, the Commissioner should exercise the same by consulting all
concerned interests and guided by considerations of what is in the
interests of the general public.
23] It could further be seen that issue, with regard to righs of the
hawkers / vendors to carry on trade of hawking / vending again fell
for consideration along with right of slum dwellers before the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Olga Tellis and Others
vs.Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others7. In the said case, a
preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Corporation that the
7 (1985) 3 SCC 545
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Petition filed directly under Article 32 was not tenable. Their
Lordships, however, rejected the said contention. It was held by Their
Lordships that if the Petitioners were evicted, they were likely to loose
their right of livelihood, which would be included in Article 21 and, as
such, the challenge could directly be entertained by the Apex Court
under Article 32.
24] Their Lordships considered the provisions of Section 314 of the
BMC Act. Their Lordships considered as to whether the procedure
prescribed by Section 314 of the BMC Act, for removal of
encroachment on the footpaths and pavements over which public have
right to passage or access, can be considered as unreasonable, unfair
or unjsut. The contention was specifically rejected by Their Lordships
of the Apex Court. It would be relevant to reproduce the following
observations of the Constitution Bench in Olga Tellis (supra):-
"43. In the first place, footpaths or pavements are public
properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the
general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed, their
use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they
are carved out from portions of public streets. The main reason for
laying out pavements is to ensure that the pedestrians are able to
go about their daily affairs with a reasonable measure of safety
and security. That facility, which has matured into a right of the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
pedestrians, cannot be set at naught by allowing encroachments to
be made on the pavements. There is no substance in the argument
advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the claim of the
pavement dwellers to put up constructions on pavements and that
of the pedestrians to make use of the pavements for passing and
repassing, are competing claims and that, the former should be
preferred to the latter. No one has the right to make use of a public
property for a private purpose without the requisite authorisation
and, therefore, it is erroneous to contend that the pavement
dwellers have the right to encroach upon pavements by
constructing dwellings thereon. Public streets, of which
pavements form a part, are primarily dedicated for the purpose of
passage and, even the pedestrians have but the limited right of
using pavements for the purpose of passing and repassing. So long
as a person does not transgress the limited purpose for which
pavements are made, his use thereof is legitimate and lawful. But,
if a person puts any public property to a use for which it is not
intended and is not authorised so to use it, he becomes a
trespasser. The common example which is cited in some of the
English cases (see, for example, Hickman v. Maisey [(1900) 1 QB
752 : 1900 WN 72 (CA)] ) is that if a person, while using a
highway for passage, sits down for a time to rest himself by the
side of the road, he does not commit a trespass. But, if a person
puts up a dwelling on the pavement, whatever may be the
economic compulsions behind such an act, his user of the
pavement would become unauthorised. As stated in Hickman
[(1900) 1 QB 752 : 1900 WN 72 (CA)] it is not easy to draw an
exact line between the legitimate user of a highway as a highway
and the user which goes beyond the right conferred upon the
public by its dedication. But, as in many other cases, it is not
difficult to put cases well on one side of the line. Putting up a
dwelling on the pavement is a case which is clearly on one side of
the line showing that it is an act of trespass. Section 61 of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act lays down the obligatory
duties of the Corporation, under clause (d) of which, it is its duty
to take measures for abatement, of all nuisances. The existence of
dwellings on the pavements is unquestionably a source of
nuisance to the public, at least for the reason that they are denied
the use of pavements for passing and repassing. They are
compelled, by reason of the occupation of pavements by dwellers,
to use highways and public streets as passages. The affidavit filed
on behalf of the Corporation shows that the fall-out of pedestrians
in large numbers on highways and streets constitutes a grave
traffic hazard. Surely, pedestrians deserve consideration in the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
matter of their physical safety, which cannot be sacrificed in order
to accommodate persons who use public properties for a private
purpose, unauthorizedly. Under clause (o) of Section 61 of the
B.M.C. Act, the Corporation is under an obligation to remove
obstructions upon public streets and other public places. The
counter-affidavit of the Corporation shows that the existence of
hutments on pavements is a serious impediment in repairing the
roads, pavements, drains and streets. Section 63(k), which is
discretionary, empowers the Corporation to take measures to
promote public safety, health or convenience not specifically
provided otherwise. Since it is not possible to provide any public
conveniences to the pavement dwellers on or near the pavements,
they answer the nature's call on the pavements or on the streets
adjoining them. These facts provide the background to the
provision for removal of encroachments on pavements and
footpaths."
(Emphasis supplied)
In para 46, Their Lordships rejected the contention of the
Corporation that no notice be given. Further in para 51, Their
Lordships have observed that, though, normally, they would have
directed the BMC to offer an opportunity to the Petitioners to show
that the encroachment committed by them on pavements and
footpaths should not be removed, but since the opportunity was
granted by Their Lordships in ample measure, it was not necessary to
do so. Their Lordships, after considering the rival contentions, held
that the Commissioner was justified in directing removal of
encroachments committed by the Petitioners on pavements, footpaths
or accessory roads.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
25] Again, in the case of Sodan Singh and Others vs. New Delhi
Municipal Committee and Others8, Their Lordships considered the claim
of vendors / hawkers of trading on the pavements and roads in the
City of Delhi. It would be relevant to refer to the following
observations of Their Lordships in para 17 of the said Judgment which
read as under:-
"17. So far as right of a hawker to transact business while going
from place to place is concerned, it has been admittedly
recognised for a long period. Of course, that also is subject to
proper regulation in the interest of general convenience of the
public including health and security considerations. What about
the right to squat on the roadside for engaging in trading business?
As was stated by this Court in Bombay Hawkers' Union v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation [(1985) 3 SCC 528] the public
streets by their nomenclature and definition are meant for the use
of the general public: they are not laid to facilitate the carrying on
of private business. If hawkers were to be conceded the right
claimed by them, they could hold the society to ransom by
squatting on the busy thoroughfares, thereby paralysing all civic
life. This is one side of the picture. On the other hand, if properly
regulated according to the exigency of the circumstances, the
small traders on the sidewalks can considerably add to the comfort
and convenience of general public, by making available ordinary
articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. An
ordinary person, not very affluent, while hurrying towards his
home after day's work can pick up these articles without going out
of his way to find a regular market. If the circumstances are
appropriate and a small trader can do some business for personal
gain on the pavement to the advantage of the general public and
without any discomfort or annoyance to the others, we do not see
any objection to his carrying on the business. Appreciating this
analogy the municipalities of different cities and towns in the
8 (1989)
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
country have been allowing such traders. The right to carry on
trade or business mentioned in Article 19(1)( g) of the
Constitution, on street pavements, if properly regulated cannot be
denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for
passing or re-passing and for no other use. Proper regulation is,
however, a necessary condition as otherwise the very object of
laying out roads -- to facilitate traffic -- may be defeated.
Allowing the right to trade without appropriate control is likely to
lead to unhealthy competition and quarrel between traders and
travelling public and sometimes amongst the traders themselves
resulting in chaos. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions
under clause (6) or Article 19. If the matter is examined in its light
it will appear that the principle stated in Saghir Ahmad case [AIR
1954 SC 728 : (1955) 1 SCR 707] in connection with transport
business applies to the hawkers' case also. The proposition that all
public streets and roads in India vest in the State but that the State
holds them as trustee on behalf of the public, and the members of
the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of
right, and that this right is limited only by the similar rights
possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways, and further
that the State as trustee is entitled to impose all necessary
limitations on the character and extent of the user, should be
treated as of universal application."
(Emphasis supplied)
It could thus be seen that the Constitution Bench of Their Lordships
held that right of hawker to transact business while going from place
to place is concerned, the same has been admittedly recognized for a
long period, however that also is subject to proper regulation in the
interest of general convenience of the public including health and
security considerations. Their Lordships have reiterated the view
taken in Bombay Hawkers Union (cited supra), that the public streets
by their nomenclature and definition are meant for the use of the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
general public and they are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of
private business. Their Lordships held that if hawkers were to be
conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold the society to
ransom by squatting on the busy thoroughfares, thereby paralysing all
civic life. However, Their Lordships further held that if such a right is
properly regulated, according to the exigency of the circumstances, the
small traders on the sidewalks can considerably add to the comfort
and convenience of general public, by making available ordinary
articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. While
recognizing such a right, Their Lordships held that proper regulation is
necessary condition, as otherwise very object of laying out roads - to
facilitate traffic - may be defeated. It has been held that the right as
mentioned in Article 19(1)(g), if properly regulated, cannot be denied.
However, the same is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause
(6) of Article 19. In para 18, Their Lordships observed that provisions
of Municipal Acts, in case of ambiguity, should receive a beneficial
interpretation. On the one hand, they may enable the municipalities
to liberally exercise their authority both, in granting permission to
individuals for making other uses of the pavements, and, for removal
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
of any encroachment which may, in their opinion, be constituting
undesirable obstruction to the travelling public.
26] It is further to be noted that it was sought to be asserted on
behalf of the Petitioners in Sodan Singh (cited supra) that they have
fundamental right to occupy the places on pavements to carry on their
business. Negating the said submission, Their Lordships observed
thus :-
"19. The controversy in the present cases, however, cannot be
settled by what has been said earlier. The claim of the petitioners
before us is much higher. They assert the right to occupy specific
places on road pavements alleging that they have been so doing in
the past. As has been stated earlier, the facts have been disputed and
individual cases will be considered separately in the light of the
present judgment. The argument, however, which has been pressed
on behalf of the petitioners is that they have their fundamental rights
guaranteed by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution to occupy
specific places demarcated on the pavements on a permanent basis
for running their business. We do not think there is any question of
application of Article 21 and we will be briefly indicating our
reasons therefor later. But can there be at all a fundamental right of
a citizen to occupy a particular place on the pavement where he can
squat and engage in trading business? We have no hesitation in
answering the issue against the petitioners. The petitioners do have
the fundamental right to carry on a trade or business of their choice,
but not to do so on a particular place. The position can be
appreciated better in the light of two decisions of this Court in
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India [(1981) 1
SCC 568 : (1981) 2 SCR 52] and K. Rajendran v. State of T.N.
[(1982) 2 SCC 273 : (1982) 3 SCR 628] "
(Emphasis supplied)
It would further be relevant to refer to para 24 of the said Judgment,
which reads thus :-
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
"24. We would, however, make it clear that the demand of
the petitioners that the hawkers must be permitted on every
road in the city cannot be allowed. If a road is not wide
enough to conveniently manage the traffic on it, no hawking
may be permitted at all, or may be sanctioned only once a
week, say on Sundays when the rush considerably thins out.
Hawking may also be justifiably prohibited near hospitals or
where necessity of security measures so demands. There may
still be other circumstances justifying refusal to permit any
kind of business on a particular road. The demand on behalf of
the petitioners that permission to squat on a particular place
must be on a permanent basis also has to be rejected as
circumstances are likely to change from time to time. But this
does not mean that the licence has to be granted on the daily
basis; that arrangement cannot be convenient to anybody,
except in special circumstances."
(Emphasis supplied)
In para 25 of the said Judgment, Their Lordships further observed that
the authorities, while adopting a scheme, should also consider the
question as to which portions of the pavements should be left free for
pedestrians and number of the squatters to be allowed on a particular
road.
27] It would appear from the record, that pursuant to the judgment
of Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Bombay Hawkers' Union
(supra), BMC constituted an Advisory Committee composing of
officials of the Corporation, representatives of residents' associations,
NGOs, elected representatives of the traffic police and representatives
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
of hawkers. A draft scheme was framed on 12/08/1996 under which
488 zones were shown as hawking zones. The said draft scheme came
to be challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition. Under the
said scheme, 49,000 hawkers were to be accommodated. Under the
said draft scheme, 28 sites, in different wards, were earmarked for
construction of hawkers' plazas. Under the said scheme, highways,
arterial and trunk roads, footover bridges, subways, certain distance
around railway stations, certain radius around municipal markets,
religious places, educational institutions, medical institutions and large
traffic junctions, were totally banned for hawkers. It further appears
that the BMC had also got undertaken survey by Tata Institute of
Social Sciences and Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action, which
disclosed that there were approximately 1,03,000 hawkers out of
which 15,000 were licensed hawkers and approximately 22,000 were
issued daily receipts or "pautis" under a scheme known as
"Unauthorized Occupation-cum-Refuse Removal Charges". During
the pendency of Writ Petitions before this Court, BMC had filed
modified scheme on 31/07/1999 vide which number of hawkers zones
were brought down to 377 from 488. The number of hawkers, who
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
could be accommodated was also brought down to 38,000. The
proposal for construction of hawking plazas on 28 sites was deleted.
On 01/03/2000, this Court constituted a Committee consisting of the
Additional Municipal Commissioner in charge of the scheme,
representative of the Bombay Hawkers' Association, representative of
some of the residents' association and NGO. This Committee heard
and considered representations from various persons. The Committee,
thereafter, made its recommendations, reducing number of hawking
zones to 187. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 05/07/2000
sanctioned the Scheme with few modifications. The said judgment
came to be challenged before the Apex Court.
28] The Apex Court considered the issue in Maharashtra Ekta
Hawkers Union and Another vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai
and Others9 (hereinafter referred to as "2004 Ekta Judgment") Perusal
of the said judgment, particularly para 12, reveals that though Their
Lordships attempted to go through the scheme, street by street, it was
found that it was appropriate that the Court approves the conditions of
the scheme and certain roads/streets on which hawking was to be
9 (2004) 1 SCC 624
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
permitted and thereafter Committee must be appointed as was done in
the case of Sodan Singh (supra). Their Lordships observed that the
Committee could decide whether any particular road/street is to be
declared as non-hawking zone. Para 13 of the said Judgment would
reveal that Their Lordships included 49 additional roads in addition to
the 187 which were already approved. However, while doing so, BMC
was directed to ensure that there was no impediment or hindrance to
vehicular traffic or pedestrians. The approval of additional 49 roads
was subject to approval/NOC from the traffic police. Their Lordships
further observed that the restrictions with regard to distance from
railway station, hospital, educational institutions, places of worship
etc. would continue to apply. Their Lordships in para 14 laid down
various restrictions/conditions on which the hawkers were to conduct
their business. It will be relevant to refer to para 14 of the said
judgment, which reads thus :-
"14. The restrictions/conditions on which the hawkers shall do
business are:
(1) An area of 1 m × 1 m on one side of the footpath wherever
they exist or on an extreme side of the carriageway, in such a
manner that the vehicular and pedestrian traffic is not obstructed
and access to shops and residences is not blocked. We further
clarify that even where hawking is permitted, it can only be on one
side of the footpath or road and under no circumstances on both
sides of the footpaths or roads. We, however, clarify
that aarey/sarita stalls and sugarcane vendors would require and
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
may be permitted an area of more than 1 m × 1 m but not more
than 2 m × 1 m.
(2) Hawkers must not put up stalls or place any tables, stand or
such other thing or erect any type of structure. They should also
not use handcarts. However, they may protect their goods from
the sun, rain or wind. Obviously, this condition would not apply
to aarey/sarita stalls.
(3) There should be no hawking within 100 metres from any
place of worship, holy shrine, educational institutions and hospitals
or within 150 metres from any municipal or other markets or from
any railway station. There should be no hawking on footbridges
and overbridges. Further, certain areas may be required to be
kept free of hawkers for security reasons. However, outside
places of worship hawkers can be permitted to sell items required
by the devotees for offering to the deity or for placing in the place
of worship e.g. flowers, sandalwood, candles, agarbattis, coconuts
etc.
(4) The hawkers must not create any noise or play any
instrument or music for attracting the public or the customers.
(5) They can only sell cooked foods, cut fruits, juices and the
like. We are unable to accept the submission that cooking should
be permitted. We direct that no cooking of any nature whatsoever
shall be permitted. Even where cooked food or cut fruits or the like
are sold, the food must not be adulterated or unhygienic. All
Municipal Licensing Regulations and the provisions of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must be complied with.
(6) Hawking must be only between 7.00 a.m. and 10.00 p.m.
(7) Hawking will be on the basis of payment of a prescribed
fee to be fixed by BMC. However, the payment of prescribed fee
shall not be deemed to authorize the hawker to do his business
beyond the prescribed hours and would not confer on the hawker
the right to do business at any particular place.
(8) The hawkers must extend full cooperation to the municipal
conservancy staff for cleaning the streets and footpaths and also
to the other municipal staff for carrying on any municipal work.
They must also cooperate with the other government and public
agencies such as BEST Undertaking, Bombay Telephones,
BSES Ltd. etc. if they require to lay any cable or any
development work.
(9) No hawking would be permitted on any street which is less
than 8 metres in width. Further, the hawkers also have to comply
with the Development Control Rules, thus, there can be no
hawking in areas which are exclusively residential and where
trading and commercial activity is prohibited. Thus hawking
cannot be permitted on roads and pavements which do not have
a shopping line.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
(10) BMC shall grant licences which will have photos of the
hawkers on them. The licence must be displayed, at all times, by
the hawkers on their person by clipping it on to their shirt or coat.
(11) Not more than one member of a family must be given a
licence to hawk. For this purpose BMC will have to computerize
its records.
(12) Vending of costly items e.g. electrical appliances, video
and audio tapes and cassettes, cameras, phones etc. is to be
prohibited. In the event of any hawker found to be selling such
items his licence must be cancelled forthwith.
(13) In areas other than the non-hawking zones, licences
must be granted to the hawkers to do their business on payment
of the prescribed fee. The licences must be for a period of 1 year.
That will be without prejudice to the right of the Committee to
extend the limits of the non-hawking zones in the interests of
public health, sanitation, safety, public convenience and the like.
Hawking licences should not be refused in the hawking zones
except for good reasons. The discretion not to grant a hawking
licence in the hawking zone should be exercised reasonably and
in public interest.
(14) In future, before making any alteration in the scheme, the
Commissioner should place the matter before the Committee
who shall take a decision after considering views of all concerned
including the hawkers, the Commissioner of Police and members
of the public or an association representing the public.
(15) It is expected that citizens and shopkeepers shall
participate in keeping non-hawking zones/areas free from
hawkers. They shall do so by bringing to the notice of the ward
officer concerned the presence of a hawker in a non-hawking
zone/area. The ward officer concerned shall take immediate
steps to remove such a hawker. In case the ward officer takes no
action, a written complaint may be filed by the citizen/shopkeeper
to the Committee. The Committee shall look into the complaint
and if found correct, the Committee will with the help of police
remove the hawker. The officer in charge of the police station
concerned is directed to give prompt and immediate assistance
to the Committee. In the event of the Committee finding the
complaint to be correct it shall so record. On the Committee so
recording an adverse remark re failure to perform his duty will be
entered in the confidential record of the ward officer concerned. If
more than three such entries are found in the record of an officer
it would be a ground for withholding promotion. If more than six
such entries are found in the records of an officer it shall be a
ground for termination of service. For the work of attending to
such complaints BMC shall pay to the Chairman a fixed
honorarium of Rs 10,000 p.m.
(16) The scheme framed by us will have a binding effect on all
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
concerned. Thus, apart from those to whom licences will now be
issued, no other person/body will have any right to squat or carry
on any hawking or other business on the roads/streets. We direct
that BMC shall bring this judgment to the notice of all courts in
which matters are now pending. We are quite sure that the
court(s) concerned shall then suitably vacate/modify its
injunction/stay order."
29] In the said Judgment, Their Lordship did not approve of the
principle that all major, trunk and arterial roads should automatically
be excluded from hawking zones. Their Lordships observed that the
Committee would be entitled to examine, on receipt of a proposal
whether hawking can be permitted on such roads. It was also
observed that if without too much hindrance to vehicular and
pedestrian traffic hawking can be permitted, it must be so permitted.
Their Lordships further observed that it would be open for BMC to set
up hawking plazas. The Committee which came to be appointed by
Their Lordships, consisted of a retired Judge of the Bombay City Civil
Court at Bombay and other members.
30] It further appears that the matter again came before Their
Lordships and Their Lordships passed an order on 30/07/2004. Vide
said order, it was directed that since Their Lordships were seized of
the matter, no other Court could hear the matter and only Apex Court
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
would hear the matter. Their Lordships further found that since
number of applications received by the Committee were large in
number, it was necessary to appoint two more Committees. Their
Lordships further directed that all unauthorized hawkers and hawkers
other than the licensed hawkers must be removed in a phase-wise
manner from non-hawking zones. The Senior Police Officers of the
Traffic Department were directed to render all assistance to the
Bombay Municipal Corporation for such removal.
31] The matter again came up before Their Lordships on
01/04/2005. Vide the order passed on the said date, Their Lordships
were pleased to direct the police to give full and complete protection
to the Municipal staff as and when they go to clear the hawkers as per
the directions of the Court. The Police Commissioner was also
directed to ensure that there was regular patrolling to ensure that
once the hawkers were removed from a particular place, they did not
come back again to the same place.
32] The matter again came up for consideration before Their
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Lordships of the Apex Court, which was considered vide judgment in
the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal
Corporation, Greater Mumbai10 (hereinafter referred to as "2009 Ekta
Judgment")
Their Lordships considered the recommendations of the three
Committees which were constituted by Their Lordships as per earlier
orders. It was sought to be contended before Their Lordships, that
Committees had interfered with 187 plus 49 roads which were
approved by Their Lordships as hawking-zone, by reducing the same.
It was submitted that the same was not permissible. Their Lordships
rejected the said contention by observing thus :
"17. Reading paras 13 and 16 of our order conjointly, would
clearly show that although we have in principle approved 187
roads as hawking zones, we have permitted the Committees to
further consider whether hawking can be permitted on such
road/street or not. In our view, therefore, the contention of the
petitioners that the Committees had reduced the roads, which
had been declared the hawking zones by this Court, without
any authority, must be rejected. In our view, the Committees
had exercised their powers in consonance with the directions
issued by this Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
It further appears from the said judgment, that out the 248
10 (2009) 17 SCC 151
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
roads recommended by the Hawking Committees, 27 roads fell within
100/150 meters from the places of worship and educational
institutions. The Committees had suggested for modification of
Direction No.3 in 2004 Order. However, the said request was rejected.
Twenty seven roads were directed to be reduced. As such total roads
available as hawking zones, were approved to be 221.
Their Lordships further observed that, as recommended by the
Committee, 5555 licensed hawkers are allowed to continue their
business irrespective of draw of lots. Their Lordships further directed
that 2083 licensed hawkers hawking in hawking zones shall be
allowed to continue the hawking irrespective of draw of lots. 7521
licensed hawkers who were in non-hawking zones were directed to
shift to hawking zones and allowed to continue hawking. All these
were subject to regulations to be framed by the Government of
Maharashtra. There were also certain other directions issued by Their
Lordships with regard to allotment of pitches etc. Certain
recommendations made with regard to hawkers plaza by Committees,
were accepted by Their Lordships and the BMC was to undertake
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
immediate steps for making the infrastructure available. Their
Lordships took into consideration the National Policy on Urban Street
Vendors which was framed as far back as in 2004. Their Lordships
observed that Section 10 of the said Policy deals with the role of the
State Governments. Upon direction by Their Lordships, an affidavit
came to be filed by the State Government, stating therein that in
order to implement the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors in the
State, a Committee had been appointed under the Chairmanship of
the Principal Secretary II, Urban Development Department, which also
consisted eight other Officers. Petitions were disposed of by directing
the State Government to frame regulations in order to solve the
problems of hawkers, without being influenced by any scheme framed
by the Court or any direction issued by the Court.
33] Again in Gainda Ram and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Others11, Their Lordships of the Apex Court considered the
issue with regard to right of hawkers to do their vending business on
the streets situated within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi. Their Lordships had an occasion to consider the new National
11 (2010) 10 SCC 715
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009. Their Lordship also considered
that the Bill called the Model Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood
and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2009 was also finalized. Their
Lordships therefore disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction that
problems of hawking and street vending may be regulated by the
present scheme framed by the MCD till 30/06/2011. Before that date,
the appropriate Government was directed to enact and bring out the
law to regulate hawking and the hawkers' fundamental right.
34] Their Lordships vide Order dated 30.11.2010 in Maharashtra
Ekta Hawkers' Union case, directed discontinuance of Three Members
Committees, after observing that finalization of hawking and non-
hawking zones was already done. Their Lordships further observed
that the functions of issuing licences to hawkers as contemplated in
the judgment dated 9.12.2003 read with the judgment dated
12.2.2007 will be discharged by a Senior Officer of the Municipal
Corporation to be designated by the Municipal Commissioner.
35] Lastly, in the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & anr.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & Ors. 12 (hereinafter
referred to as "2013 Ekta Judgment), Their Lordships have again
considered the said issue. In para 14, Their Lordships have lifted the
embargo which they had put earlier on High Courts on entertaining
the issue and observed that the street vendors / hawkers, the residents
and others adversely affected by street vending / hawking shall
henceforth be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the concerned High
Courts for redressal of their grievance. Their Lordships, in para 15,
noticed that in Gainda Ram's case, Their Lordships had directed the
appropriate Government to enact the law on or before 30 th June, 2011.
It has been observed by Their Lordships that once the Street Vendors
(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012
becomes law, the livelihood of millions wold be saved and they will
get protection against constant harassment and victimization which
has so far been an order of the day. Their Lordships, however,
observed that till the needful is done, it will be apposite for the Court
to step in and direct that 2009 policy should be implemented
throughout the country. Operative part of the said judgment reads
thus :-
12 2013(6) Bom.C.R. 481
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
"16. For facilitating implementation of the 2009 Policy, we
issue the following directions:
(i) Within one month from the date of receipt of copy
of this order, the Chief Secretaries of the State
Governments and Administrators of the Union Territories
shall issue necessary instructions/directions to the
department(s) concerned to ensure that the Town Vending
Committee is constituted at city/town level in accordance
with the provisions contained in the 2009 Policy. For the
cities and towns having large municipal areas, more than
one Town Vending Committee may be constituted.
(ii) Each Town Vending Committee shall consist of
representatives of various organisations and street
vendors/hawkers. 30% of the representatives from the
category of street vendors/hawkers shall be women.
(iii) The representatives of various organisations and
street vendors/hawkers shall be chosen by the Town
Vending Committee by adopting a fair and transparent
mechanism.
(iv) The task of constituting the Town Vending
Committees shall be completed within two months of the
issue of instructions by the Chief Secretaries of the State
and the Administrators of the Union Territories.
(v) The Town Vending Committees shall function strictly
in accordance with the 2009 Policy and the decisions
taken by it shall be notified in the print and electronic
media within next one week.
(vi) The Town Vending Committees shall be free to
divide the municipal areas in vending/hawking zones and
sub-zones and for this purpose they may take assistance
of experts in the field. While undertaking this exercise,
the Town Vending Committees constituted for the cities
of Delhi and Mumbai shall take into consideration the
work already undertaken by the municipal authorities in
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
furtherance of the directions given by this Court. The
municipal authorities shall also take action in terms of
Paras 4.2(b) and (c).
(vii) All street vendors/hawkers shall be registered in
accordance with Para 4.5.4 of the 2009 Policy. Once
registered, the street vendor/hawker, shall be entitled to
operate in the area specified by the Town Vending
Committee.
(viii) The process of registration must be completed by
the municipal authorities across the country within four
months of the receipt of the direction by the Chief
Secretaries of the States and Administrators of the Union
Territories.
(ix) The State Governments/Administration of the
Union Territories and municipal and local authorities
shall take all the steps necessary for achieving the
objectives set out in the 2009 Policy.
(x) The Town Vending Committee shall meet every
month and ensure implementation of the relevant
provisions of the 2009 Policy and, in particular, Paras
4.5.1(b) and (c).
(xi) Physically challenged who were allowed to operate
PCOs in terms of the judgment reported in Maharashtra
Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corpn., Greater
Mumbai [(2009) 17 SCC 231] shall be allowed to
continue to run their stalls and sell other goods because
running of PCOs is no longer viable. Those who were
allowed to run Aarey/Sarita shall be allowed to continue
to operate their stalls.
(xii) The State Governments, the Administration of the
Union Territories and municipal authorities shall be free
to amend the legislative provisions and/or delegated
legislation to bring them in tune with the 2009 Policy. If
there remains any conflict between the 2009 Policy and
the municipal laws, insofar as they relate to street
vendors/hawkers, then the 2009 Policy shall prevail.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
(xiii) Henceforth, the parties shall be free to approach
the jurisdictional High Courts for redressal of their
grievance and the direction, if any, given by this Court in
the earlier judgments/orders shall not impede disposal of
the cases which may be filed by the aggrieved parties.
(xiv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are
requested to nominate a Bench to deal with the cases
filed for implementation of the 2009 Policy and disputes
arising out of its implementation. The Bench concerned
shall regularly monitor implementation of the 2009
Policy and the law which may be enacted by Parliament.
(xv) All the existing street vendors/hawkers operating
across the country shall be allowed to operate till the
exercise of registration and creation of vending/hawking
zones is completed in terms of the 2009 Policy. Once
that exercise is completed, they shall be entitled to
operate only in accordance with the orders/directions of
the Town Vending Committee concerned.
(xvi) The provisions of the 2009 Policy and the
directions contained hereinabove shall apply to all the
municipal areas in the country."
In para 17 of the said Judgment, Their Lordships observed that the
aforesaid directions shall remain operative, till an appropriate
legislation is enacted by Parliament or any other competent legislature
and is brought into force.
36] After the said judgment was delivered by Their Lordships of the
Apex Court on 09/09/2013, the said Act has been enacted by the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Parliament which received the assent of the President on 04/03/2014
and has been brought in to force on 01/05/2014.
THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AND CONSIDERATION THEREOF
BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT
37] It will be relevant to refer to clauses (b), (j), (l), (m) and
(n) of Section 2 of the said Act. Clause (b) defines "holding capacity"
to mean the maximum number of street vendors who can be
accommodated in any vending zone and has been determined as such
by the local authority on the recommendations of the Town Vending
Committee. Clause (j) defines "scheme" to mean a scheme framed by
the appropriate Government under Section 38. Clause (l) defines the
term "street vendor", Clause (m) defines "Town Vending Committee"
to mean the body constituted by the appropriate Government under
Section 22. Clause (n) defines "vending zone" to mean an area or a
place or a location designated as such by the local authority, on the
recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, for the specific
use by street vendors for street vending and includes footpath, side
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
walk, pavement, embankment, portions of a street, waiting area for
public or any such place considered suitable for vending activities and
providing services to the general public.
38] Section 3 of the said Act reads thus :-
"3. Survey of street vendors and protection from
eviction or relocation. - (1) The Town Vending Committee
shall, within such period and in such manner as may be
specified in the scheme, conduct a survey of all existing street
vendors, within the area under its jurisdiction, and subsequent
survey shall be carried out at least once in every five years.
(2) The Town Vending Committee shall ensure that all
existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are
accommodated in the vending zones subject to a norm
conforming to two and half per cent. Of the population of
the ward or zone or town or city, as the case may be, in
accordance with the plan for street vending and the
holding capacity of the vending zones.
(3) No street vendor shall be evicted or, as the case may
be, relocated till the survey specified under sub-section (1)
has been completed and the certificate of vending is
issued to all street vendors."
It could thus be seen that sub-section (1) of Section 3 requires
TVC to conduct survey of all existing street vendors within the area
under its jurisdiction within such period and in such manner as may
be specified in the scheme. It further provides that subsequent
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
survey shall be carried out at least once in every five years. Sub-
section (2) of Section 3 provided that TVC shall ensure that all
existing street vendors, identified in the survey, are accommodated in
the vending zones subject to a norm conforming to two and half per
cent of the population of the ward or zone or town or city, as the case
may be, in accordance with the plan for street vending and the
holding capacity of the vending zones. Sub-section (3) of Section 3
provides that no street vendor shall be evicted or relocated till the
survey specified under sub-section (1) has been completed and the
certificate of vending is issued to all street vendors.
39] Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that every street
vendor, identified under the survey carried out under sub-section (1)
of section 3, who has completed the age of fourteen years shall be
issued a certificate of vending by the TVC. Proviso to sub-section (1)
of Section 4 entitles a person who has been issued a certificate of
vending before the commencement of the Act, whether known as
licence or any other form of permission, to be deemed to be a street
vendor in that category, for the purpose for which he has been issued
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
such certificate of vending, irrespective of, even if such a person is not
included under the survey carried out under sub-section (1) of
Section 3.
40] Section 21 mandates that a local authority, in consultation
with the planning authority and on the recommendations of the TVC
shall prepare a plan to promote the vocation of street vendors once in
every five years. The plan so prepared is required to be submitted to
the appropriate Government for its approval. It further provides that
Government shall, before notifying the plan, determine the norms
applicable to the street vendors.
41] Section 22 of the said Act reads thus :-
"22. Town Vending Committee. - (1) The appropriate
Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for
the term and the manner of constituting a Town Vending
Committee in each local authority:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, if
considers necessary, provide for constitution of more than
one Town Vending Committee, or a Town Vending
Committee for each zone or ward, in each local authority.
(2) Each Town Vending Committee shall consist of :-
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
(a) Municipal Commissioner or Chief Executive Officer,
as the case may be, who shall be the Chairperson; and
(b) such number of other members as may be
prescribed, to be nominated by the appropriate
Government, representing the local authority, medical
officer of the local authority, the planning authority,
traffic police, police, association of street vendors,
market associations, traders associations, non-
governmental organisations, community based
organisations, resident welfare associations, banks and
such other interests as it deems proper;
(c) the number of members nominated to represent the
non-governmental organisations and the community
based organisations shall not be less than ten per cent.;
(d) the number of members representing the street
vendors shall not be less than forty per cent. who shall
be elected by the street vendors themselves in such
manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that one-third of members representing the
street vendors shall be from amongst women vendors:
Provided further that due representation shall be
given to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes,
Other Backward Classes, minorities and persons, with
disabilities from amongst the members representing
street vendors.
(3) The Chairperson and the members nominated
under sub-section (2) shall receive such allowances as
may be prescribed by the appropriate Government."
Sub-section (1) of Section 22 enables the appropriate
Government to provide, in the rules for the term and the manner of
constituting TVC in each local authority. The proviso thereto enable
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
the appropriate Government to provide for constitution of more than
one TVC or TVCs for each zone or ward, in each local authority.
Clause (a) of sub-section (2) thereof provides that Municipal
Commissioner or Chief Executive Officer shall be the Chairperson of
the Committee. Clause (b) thereof provides that the Committee shall
also consist of such number of other members as may be prescribed to
be nominated by the appropriate Government, representing the local
authority, medical officer of the local authority, the planning
authority, traffic police, police, association of street vendors, market
associations, traders associations, non-governmental organisations,
community based organisations, resident welfare associations, banks
and such other interests as it deems proper. Clause (c) thereof
provides that number of NGOs and the community based
organisations shall not be less than ten percent. Clause (d) provides
that number of members representing the street vendors shall not be
less than forty percent, who shall be elected by the street vendors
themselves in such manner as may be prescribed. The first proviso to
clause (d) provides that one-third of members representing the street
vendors shall be from amongst women vendors and the second
proviso provides that due representation shall be given to the
Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes,
minorities and persons with disabilities in the said category.
42] Section 33 provides that, the provisions of the said Act shall
have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therein
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
contained in any other law for the time being in force or any
instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the said Act.
43] Section 34 enables the appropriate Government to delegate
such powers and functions as it may deem necessary to the local
authority or TVC. However, it provides that power under Section 38
and 36 cannot be delegated. Section 36 is rule making power which
empowers the appropriate Government to frame, within one year from
the date of commencement of the Act, by notification, Rules for
carrying out the provisions of the said Act. Clause (h) of sub-section
(2) of Section 36 deals with the term and the manner of constituting
the TVC under sub-section (1) of Section 22. Clause (I) deals with the
number of other members of the TVC under clause (b) of sub-section
(2) of Section 22. Clause (j) deal with election amongst street
vendors under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 22.
44] Section 38 of the said Act reads thus :-
"38. Scheme for street vendors.- (1) For the purposes
of this Act, the appropriate Government shall frame a
scheme, within six months from the date of
commencement of this Act, after due consultations
with the local authority and the Town Vending
Committee, by notification, which may specify all or
any of the matters provided in the Second Schedule.
(2) A summary of the scheme notified by the
appropriate Government under sub-section (1) shall
be published by the local authority in at least two
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
local news papers in such manner as may be
prescribed."
Section 38 mandates that the appropriate Government shall
frame a scheme within six months from the date of coming into force
of the rules framed under section 36 after due consultation with the
local authority and the TVC. It requires that such a scheme has to be
framed by issuing a Notification and requires to specify all or any of
the matters provided in the Second Schedule in the said scheme. Sub-
section (2) of Section 38 provides that a summary of the scheme
notified by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) shall be
published by the local authority in at least two local news papers in
such manner as may be prescribed.
45] In the case of Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal and Ors V/s Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others13, provisions of the said Act
fell for consideration before the Division Bench. The Division Bench
in para 43 considered apathy on the part of State Government in not
framing the Rules and scheme within stipulated time period. It holds
that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 3, no existing street vendor
as on 1st May, 2014 can be evicted or relocated. Division Bench of this
Court (Coram: A.S. Oka & Revati Mohite Dere, JJ) disposed of the
13 2015(6) AIR Bom R 609
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Petitions by the following order:-
"ORDER
(i) We hold that with effect from 1st May, 2014 the directions
issued by the Apex Court from time to time in Civil Appeal Nos.
4156-4157 of 2002 (Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and others
v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others) shall
cease to apply and all existing street vendors as on 1st May, 2014
who are covered by the definition of clause (1) of Section 2 of the
Street Vendors Act are entitled to protection against eviction and
relocation as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 thereof.
No Street Vendors who were carrying on business as on 1st May,
2014 and who are covered by the definition of Street Vendor under
clause (1) of Section 2 shall be evicted or relocated by the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation till the survey as specified under Sub-
Section (1) of Section 3 of the Street vendors Act is carried out
and the certificates of vending are issued to all Street Vendors in
accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 4 by the Town
Vending Committee. This protection is applicable only to those
Street Vendors who were carrying on business as on 1st May
2014;
(ii) Those Street Vendors who have started street vending after
the said date shall be evicted by the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation in accordance with law. The action of eviction shall
be initiated as expeditiously as possible;
(iii) We declare that a Street Vendor who is engaged in cooking
or preparation of food items in a street, lane, side walk, footpath,
pavement, public park or any other public place or private place
either from a temporary built structure or by moving from place to
place is not covered by the definition of street vendor under clause
(1) of Section 2 of the Street Vendors Act and consequently such a
vendor shall not be entitled to protection under Sub-section (3) of
Section 3 so long as he is indulging in cooking or preparation of
food items;
(iv) We, therefore, direct the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to
initiate action of eviction in accordance with law against Street
Vendors who are engaged in preparation/cooking of food items in
street, lane, side walk, footpath, pavement, public park or any
other public place or private area either from a temporary built
structure or by moving from place to place and who do not stop
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
cooking or making food within the time specified in a notice
served to them. Action of eviction shall be initiated by the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation after following due process of law against
such Street Vendors immediately on expiry of a period of two
months from today;
(v) We direct the Municipal Corporation to ensure that when
such action of eviction is proposed, caveats shall be filed in
appropriate Courts and the Municipal Corporation shall take
prompt steps to contest the proceeding if filed for challenging the
action of eviction. We direct the Municipal Corporation to create a
tracking system for all such litigations so that the same are
promptly attended to;
(vi) We direct the Traffic Police to take necessary action in
accordance with law for preventing indiscriminate parking of
vehicles by the customers of the stalls on the said Gulmohar road
and nearby streets. Sufficient Traffic Police shall be deployed on
the said roads during the rush hours;
(vii) We direct the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development
Department of the State Government to file affidavit setting out
the outer limit within which the following actions shall be
completed by the State Government:
(a) Formulation of the scheme for street vendors under Sub-section
(1) of Section 38 of the Street Vendors Act;
(b) Framing of the Rules in accordance with Section 36 of the
Street Vendors Act; and
(c) Constitution of Town Vending Committees in each local
authority;
(viii) The aforesaid affidavit shall be filed within a period of one
month from today. Before setting out the outer limit, the State
Government shall make a note that the time provided to the State
Government under the Street Vendors Act has expired long back;
(ix) We direct the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to file an
affidavit setting out the outer limit within which the plan for street
vending shall be prepared from the date on which the Town
Vending Committee is constituted for the said local authority.
Such affidavit shall be filed within the period of six weeks from
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
today. The compliance affidavit reporting compliance with the
directions issued in terms of clauses (ii) and (iv) shall be filed on
or before 31st January, 2016;
(x) For considering the compliance affidavits to be filed by the
State Government and the Municipal Corporation, the Petition
shall be listed on 21st December, 2015;
(xi) We direct the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to take steps
for implementation of order dated 21st January, 2002 in Writ
Petition No. 1799 of 2001 immediately on expiry of a period of
two months from today. Affidavit of compliance on this aspect
shall be filed on or before 31st January, 2016;
(xii) The suits listed in paragraph 51 above pending in the City
Civil Court at Dindoshi shall be disposed of as expeditiously as
possible and in any event within a period of one year from. This
direction be communicated by the Registrar (Judicial-I) to
concerned Court;
(xiii) Rule issued in the above Petitions is made partly absolute on
above terms. There will be no order as to costs;
(xiv) All Chamber Summons and Notice of Motion, if any, are
disposed of accordingly."
46] In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal (supra), all such vendors, existing as on
01/05/2014, are entitled to protection against eviction. The division
Bench has categorically held that no Street Vendors who were
carrying business on 01/05/2014 and who were covered by the
definition of the term "street vendor" under clause clause (1) of
Section 2 shall be evicted or relocated till the survey as specified
under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act is carried
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
out and the certificates of vending are issued to all Street Vendors in
accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 4 by the Town Vending
Committee. The Division Bench has also held that those Street
Vendors who have started street vending after the said date are not
entitled to the protection of the said Act. Not only that, the Division
Bench mandated the Corporation to initiate action of eviction against
such vendors as expeditiously as possible.
CONSIDERATIONS
47] However, the question that we are faced with in the present case
is totally different. No doubt, in view of provisions of Section 33 of
the said Act, which gives the Act an overriding effect and in view of
para 17 of 2013 Ekta Judgment14, provisions of the said Act would
apply and all such directions issued by the Apex Court shall cease to
operate However, the question that we are faced with is, as to
whether survey as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
said Act could be conducted in the absence of TVCs being constituted
under the provisions of Section 22 of the said Act and in the absence
14 2013(6) Bom. C.R. 481
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
of a scheme as contemplated under the provisions of Section 38 of the
said Act or not.
48] Another question that would be required to to be answered is, as
to whether, till the vending zones and non-vending zones are
identified by TVC and declared so by local authority, the vendors
would be entitled to continue their business even in the zones which
are identified to be non-hawking/non-vending zones or not.
49] We may, at the outset, confess that the answer to the first
question is very difficult. However, with great respect to the
legislature, we may say that the difficulty arises on account of
defective legislation. Mr. Desai has argued that unless the TVCs
having representation of the street vendors as per Section 22 are
constituted, the survey under sub-section (1) of Section 3 cannot be
conducted. However, in the same breath, he submitted that unless the
survey, as required under sub-section (1) of Section 3 is conducted,
elections of the representatives of the street vendors cannot be
conducted. The question that poses thus is; which comes first, the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
chicken or the egg.
50] As has been rightly argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the
said Act has been enacted with an object to enable the street vendors
to earn a livelihood through creation of good working conditions as
enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 38(2), 39(a), 39(b) and 41 of the
Constitution and fostering a congenial environment for the urban
street vendors to carry out their activities without harassment from
any quarter. At the same time, the Act also recognizes right of street
vendors, without causing obstruction to the public. It also aims at
providing a mechanism for regulation of street vending activities to
avoid congestion on sidewalks and to ensure free flow of traffic on
roads by a legislative framework, to enable street vendors to pursue a
honest living without harassment. As already discussed hereinabove,
the legislative intent is to give importance to the TVC right from
conducting survey of all existing street vendors, issuing certificates of
vending as also cancellation of certificates of vending. Not only that,
but the local authority, while declaring a zone to be a part of no
vending zone for any public purpose, is required to act on the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
recommendations of the TVC. The plan for street vending is required
to be prepared by the local authority on the recommendations of the
TVC and in consultation with the Planning Committee. The TVC is
required to maintain up to date records of registered street vendors
and street vendors to whom certificate of vending has been issued
containing all the details. Even under Section 38, scheme is required
to be framed by the State Government only after consultation with the
local authority and the TVC. The scheme is required to specify all or
any of the matters provided in the Second Schedule. It will be
relevant to note that clause (a) of the Second Schedule specifically
provides for the manner of conducting survey.
51] We find that, if the contention of the Petitioners that, unless
survey is conducted, elections of the representatives to be elected
under Section 22 cannot be conducted and that, at the same time,
unless the TVCs are duly established by including elected
representatives of the vendors, survey cannot be conducted under sub-
section (1) of Section 3 is to be accepted; it will lead to nothing else
but unworkability of the said Act.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
52] We are of the considered view that both things cannot go hand
in hand. No doubt that it would have been apt that the appropriate
legislature while enacting the said Act, ought to have made some
transitory provision, so that the provisions in the said Act become
active and march towards the object for which it has been enacted.
The question that we are faced with is ; whether to declare that the
provisions in the said Act are self-contradictory and hold that the Act
is unworkable or to take resort to a pragmatic interpretation to find
out the solution, so that the Act comes into play and travels towards
its noble object.
53] The aforesaid position as pointed out by us hereinabove, about
the apparent conflict of sub-section (1) of section 3 on one hand and
section 22 of the said Act on the other hand reminds us of the
following observations of Justice Krishna Iyer in the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of seven Judges in the case of State of Karnataka
and another etc vs. Ranganatha Reddy and another etc. 15 Justice
Krishna Iyer in his inimitable style observes in para 48 as under:-
15 AIR 1978 SC 215
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
"48. Before entering the thorny thicket of debate on the questions
arising in this batch of appeals a cautionary word may be uttered,
without disrespect, about the unwitting punishment of the
community by our legislative draftsmen whose borrowed skills of
Westminster vintage and hurried bills without sufficient study of
their economic project, occasionally result in incomprehensibility
and incongruity of the law for the lay and the legal. Francis Bennion
[ Laws Are Not for Laymen-- Guardian Miscellany, May 29, 1975] ,
commenting on the Renton Committee Report, writes:
"The Renton Committee points out that the problem of obscure
statute law is important to every citizen.
"There is hardly any part of our national life or of our personal
lives that is not affected by one statute or another. The affairs of
local authorities, nationalised industries, public corporations and
private commerce are regulated by legislation. The life of the
ordinary citizen is affected by various provisions of the statute
book from cradle to grave."
The committee might have added that the rule of law and
parliamentary democracy itself are imperilled if laws are
incomprehensible. They did say that it is of fundamental
importance in a free society that the law should be readily
ascertainable and reasonably clear, and that otherwise it is
oppressive and deprives the citizen of one of his basic rights. It
is also needlessly expensive and wasteful. Reed Dicerson, the
famous American draftsman, said it cost the Government and
the public 'many millions of dollars annually'."
It must be said in fairness to both sides that Shri Lal Narain
Sinha whole-heartedly agreed with Shri Asoke Sen (they
appeared on opposite sides) that the legislation was ill-drafted
and made a big draft on the creative imagination and linguistic
tolerance of the Judges, to reconcile the verbal deficiencies and
semantic difficulties besetting the text. Shri Sinha told the Court
that a clarificatory bill was going before the House shortly as an
amending exercise in this behalf. Our draftsmen handle foreign
know-how meant for different circumstances, and without full
grasp of the economic regulation or the leisure and facilities for
such study."
We find that present case is a classic case to which observations made
by Justice Krishna Iyer aptly apply. We have no doubt that the Bill
which is translated into Act has resulted in incomprehensibility and
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
incongruity of the law. However, we find that the aforesaid
judgment which points out the problem, also gives a direction
towards the solution . It will be appropriate to refer to following
observations of the eminent jurist in para 53 of the said Judgment:-
"53........ Codified law is legislatively crystallised
politico-economics and so the search of the jurist
has to be wider and deeper and interlaced. Take
care of the basics, the specifics will take care of
themselves. So we have to go behind the legal
facade to respond to the rhythm of the pulsating
text of the Constitution, which casts heavy
developmental responsibilities on the Welfare
State.............This is no argument for abdication of
judicial power; for where legislation is colourable,
measures make-believe or orders mala fide, the
judges are the masters of the situation, and this
Court, under Art. 141, declares the law in that
supreme spirit. But courts must be circumspect
not to rush in where serious reflection will make
them fear to tread nor to resort to adroit
circumvention because of economic allergy to a
particular legislative policy."
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
It could thus be seen that Justice Krishna Iyer observed that, codified
law is legislatively crystallised politico-economics. It has been further
emphasized that, therefore an attempt has to be made to widen and
deepen the search and interlaced. His Lordship further observes that
no doubt that where legislation is found to be colourable and mala
fide, judges can very well declare the law to be unconstitutional.
However, his Lordship further gives a word of caution that the Court
must be circumspect not to rush in where serious reflection will make
them fear to tread nor to resort to adroit circumvention because of
economic allergy to a particular legislative policy. It will be further
appropriate to refer to the following observations in the same
judgment in para 54.
"54. .........A panoramic sociological view -- not a narrow legal
peep -- alone can invest Judicial power with capability to help
solve the myriad problems of Mankind and Mother Earth."
54] In the case of Carew and Company Ltd vs Union of India 16, Their
Lordships were considering the meaning to be given to the term
"undertaking" as was used in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices Act, 1969. Again, in his inimitable style, in para 20, Justice
16 AIR 1975 SC 2260
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Krishna Iyer, observes thus :-
"20. The law is not "a brooding omnipotence in the sky" but a
pragmatic instrument of social order. It is an operational art
controlling economic life, and interpretative effort must be
imbued with the statutory purpose. No doubt, grammar is a
good guide to meaning but a bad master to dictate.
Notwithstanding the traditional view that grammatical
construction is the golden rule, Justice Frankfurter used words
of practical wisdom when he observed [Massachusetts S and
Insurance Co.v.U.S., (1956) 352 US 128 at p. 138] :
"There is no surer way to misread a document than to
read it literally."
In para 23 of the said Judgment, His Lordship further observes thus:-
"23. If the language used in a statute can be construed widely so
as to salvage the remedial intendment, the Court must adopt it.
Of course, if the language of the statute does not admit of the
construction sought, wishful thinking is no substitute and then,
not the Court but the Legislature is to blame for enacting a damp
squib statute. In my view, minor definitional disability, divorced
from the realities of industrial economics, if stressed as the sole
touchstone, is sure to prove disastrous when we handle special
types of legislation like the one in this case. I admit that viewed
from one standpoint the logic of Shri Gupte is flawless, but it also
makes the law lifeless, since the appellant is thereby enabled
neatly to nullify the whole object of Chapter III which is to inhibit
concentration of economic power. To repeat for emphasis, when
two interpretations are feasible, that which advances the remedy
and suppresses the evil, as the Legislature envisioned, must find
favour with the Court. Are there two interpretations possible?
There are, as I have tried to show and I opt for that which gives
the law its claws." (Emphasis supplied)
It could thus be seen that, it has been observed by His Lordship that if
the language used in a statute can be construed widely, so as to
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
salvage the remedial intendment, the Court must adopt it. It has
further been observed that if the language of the statute does not
admit of the construction sought, then the legislature is to blame for
such statute. However, it has been observed that minor definitional
disability, divorced from the realities of industrial economics, if
stressed as the sole touchstone, is sure to prove disastrous when the
Court handles special types of legislation.
55] In the case of Bhudan Singh and Another vs. Nabi Bux and
Another17, Their Lordships had an occasion to consider as to whether
the word "held" as used in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 could be read as "lawfully held". Their Lordships observed
in para 9 thus :-
9. Before considering the meaning of the word "held" in
Section 9, it is necessary to mention that it is proper to assume
that the law makers who are the representatives of the people
enact laws which the society considers as honest, fair and
equitable. The object of every legislation is to advance public
welfare. In other words as observed by Crawford in his book on
"Statutory Constructions" that the entire legislative process is
influenced by considerations of justice and reason. Justice and
reason constitute the great general legislative intent in every
peace of legislation. Consequently where the suggested
construction operates harshly, ridiculously or in any other
manner contrary to prevailing conceptions of justice and reason,
17 1969 (2) SCC 481
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
in most instance, it would seem that the apparent or suggested
meaning of the statute, was not the one intended by the law
makers. In the absence of some other indication that the harsh
or ridiculous effect was actually intended by the legislature,
there is little reason to believe that it represents the legislative
intent." (Emphasis supplied)
It could thus be see that Their Lordships observed that the law makers
who are the representatives of the people, enact laws which the society
considers as honest, fair and equitable. It has been observed that the
object of every legislation is to advance public welfare and that the
legislative process is influenced by considerations of justice and
reason. It has been observed that where the suggested construction
operates harshly, ridiculously or in any other manner contrary to
prevailing conceptions of justice and reason, in most instance, it would
seem that the apparent or suggested meaning of the statute, was not
the one intended by the law makers.
Making the aforesaid observation, the Court specifically rejected
the interpretation that was sought to be raised by adopting literal
principle of interpretation that the term "held" also included
"possession" even by a trespasser. Their Lordships interpreted the
word "held" to be "lawfully held".
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
56] In the case of K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam
and Another18, Their Lordships had an occasion to consider
interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Income Tax Act,
1961. It was sought to be urged on behalf of revenue that plain and
literal meaning should be given to the provision. Per contra, it was
sought to be urged on behalf of the assessee that the said provision of
sub-section (2) could not be invoked, unless the words
"understatement of consideration in respect of transfer" were read into
the statutory provision. In the said case, Their Lordships observed as
under:-
"6. ......................We must therefore eschew literalness in the
interpretation of Section 52 sub-section (2) and try to arrive at an
interpretation which avoids this absurdity and mischief and
makes the provision rational and sensible, unless of course, our
hands are tied and we cannot find any escape from the tyranny
of the literal interpretation. It is now a well-settled rule of
construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a
statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust
result which could never have been intended by the legislature,
the court may modify the language used by the legislature or
even "do some violence" to it, so as to achieve the obvious
intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction
(vide Luke v. Inland Revenue Commissioner [(1963) AC 557] ).
The Court may also in such a case read into the statutory
provision a condition which, though not expressed, is implicit as
constituting the basic assumption underlying the statutory
provision. We think that, having regard to this well-recognised
rule of interpretation, a fair and reasonable construction of
Section 52 sub-section (2) would be to read into it a condition
that it would apply only where the consideration for the transfer
18 (1981) 4 SCC 173
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
is understated or in other words, the assessee has actually
received a larger consideration for the transfer than what is
declared in the instrument of transfer and it would have no
application in case of a bona fide transaction where the full value
of the consideration for the transfer is correctly declared by the
assessee. There are several important considerations which
incline us to accept this construction of Section 52 sub-section
(2)." (Emphasis supplied)
It could thus be clearly seen that, Their Lordships keeping aside literal
rule of interpretation, held that the words "where the consideration for
the transfer is understated" have to be read into the provisions of sub-
section (2) of section 52 of the said Act, so as to achieve the obvious
intention of the legislature.
57] In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Nusli Neville
Wadia19, while considering the provisions of Section 5 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Their
Lordships observed thus :-
"49.Section 5 of the Act, on a plain reading, would place the
entire onus upon a noticee. It, in no uncertain terms, states
that once a notice under Section 4 is issued by the Estate
Officer on formation of his opinion as envisaged therein it is
for the noticee not only to show cause in respect thereof but
also adduce evidence and make oral submissions in support
of his case. Literal meaning in a situation of this nature
would lead to a conclusion that the landlord is not required
to adduce any evidence at all nor is it required even to make
19 (2008) 3 SCC 279
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
any oral submissions. Such a literal construction would lead
to an anomalous situation because the landlord may not be
heard at all. It may not even be permitted to adduce any
evidence in rebuttal to the one adduced by the noticee nor it
would be permitted to advance any argument. Is this
contemplated in law? The answer must be rendered in the
negative. When a landlord files an application, it in a given
situation must be able to lead evidence either at the first
instance or after the evidence is led by the noticee to
establish its case and/or in rebuttal to the evidence led by
the noticee."
"50. The literal interpretation of the statute, if resorted to,
would also lead to the situation that it would not be
necessary for the landlords in any situation to plead in
regard to its need for the public premises. It could just
terminate the tenancy without specifying any cause for
eviction."
"51. Except in the first category of cases, as has been
noticed by us hereinbefore, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, in
our opinion, may have to be construed differently in view of
the decisions rendered by this Court. If the landlord being
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India is required to prove fairness and reasonableness on
its part in initiating a proceeding, it is for it to show how its
prayer meets the constitutional requirements of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. For proper interpretation not only
the basic principles of natural justice have to be borne in
mind, but also principles of constitutionalism involved
therein. With a view to read the provisions of the Act in a
proper and effective manner, we are of the opinion that
literal interpretation, if given, may give rise to an anomaly or
absurdity which must be avoided. So as to enable a
superior court to interpret a statute in a reasonable manner,
the court must place itself in the chair of a reasonable
legislator/author. So done, the rules of purposive
construction have to be resorted to which would require the
construction of the Act in such a manner so as to see that
the object of the Act is fulfilled, which in turn would lead the
beneficiary under the statutory scheme to fulfil its
constitutional obligations as held by the Court inter alia
in Ashoka Marketing Ltd.[(1990) 4 SCC 406]"
(Emphasis supplied)
"54. The provisions of the Act and the Rules in this case,
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
are, thus required to be construed in the light of the action
of the State as envisaged under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. With a view to give effect thereto, the
doctrine of purposive construction may have to be taken
recourse to. (See Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij
Mohan [(2007) 7 SCC 56 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 304 : (2007)
7 Scale 753] .)
58] We may also gainfully refer to observations in para 27 of the
Judgment of the Apex Court in N. Kannadasan vs. Ajoy Khose and
Others20, which read thus :-
"27 Interpretative tools of constitutional
provisions and the statutory provisions may be
different. Whatever interpretative tool is applied,
the Court must not forget that its job is to find
out the intention of the legislature. It can be
gathered from the words used. However, if plain
meaning assigned to the section results in
absurdity or anomaly, literal meaning
indisputably would not be applied. It is also well
settled that the Court may have to change the
interpretative tool in the event it is necessary to
give effective contextual meaning to the Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
20 (2009) 7 SCC 1
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
We may also refer to the following observations of their Lordships of
the Apex Court in para 54 and 55 of the said judgment, which read
thus:-
"54. A case of this nature is a matter of moment. It
concerns public interest. Public information about
independence and impartiality of the judiciary would be
in question. The duty of all organs of the State is that the
public trust and confidence in the judiciary may not go in
vain. Construction of a statute would not necessarily
depend upon application of any known formalism. It
must be done having regard to the text and context
thereof. For the aforementioned purpose, it is necessary
to take into consideration the statutory scheme and the
purpose and object it seeks to achieve."
"55. Construction of a statute, as is well known,
must subserve the tests of justice and reason. It is a
well-settled principle of law that in a given case with
a view to give complete and effective meaning to a
statutory provision, some words can be read into;
some words can be subtracted. Provisions of a statute
can be read down (although sparingly and rarely)."
(Emphasis supplied)
59] It could thus be seen from the aforesaid judgments that Their
Lordships have consistently held that if, by giving a plain literal
meaning to statutory provision, it leads to absurdity and unworkability
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
of the statute then the Court must resort to the principle of purposive
interpretation. It has been held that, the Court must make an attempt
to find out the obvious intention of the legislature and must make an
attempt to interpret the statute in such a manner, so as to give effect
to the intention of the legislature. It has been held that presumption is
that the legislature has enacted the statute, for giving effect to the
purpose for which it has been enacted. As has been discussed, very
purpose of the Act is to recognize rights of the vendors to do vending
business without any harassment from any quarters and also to
regulate the hawking, so that no inconvenience is caused to the
citizens. As has been argued before us on behalf of the Counsel for the
Petitioners, there is continuous harassment to the Petitioners from the
police and Corporation machineries. It could thus be seen that the
Act has been enacted with an avowed purpose of ensuring
employment to the millions of unemployed, save them from
harassment and, at the same time regulate business of hawking, so
that inconvenience is not caused to the citizens. The intention of the
legislature is to ensure participation of the stake holders while taking
ultimate decision in the matter. The Government Authorities, the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
representatives of the Local Authoritiess, the representatives of the
street vendors, so also the representatives of the residents, the
traders, the NGOs, are all expected to participate in the decision
making process. As can be seen from 2013 Ekta Judgment of the
Apex Court, that Their Lordships observe that once the said Act comes
into effect, the livelihood of millions would be saved and they would
get protection against constant harassment and victimization which
has so far been an order of the day.
60] It will not be out of place to mention that the said Act has
been enacted on account of constant directions issued by Their
Lordships of the Apex Court. It will also be pertinent to note that right
from 1983, it is Their Lordships of the Apex Court, who have from
time to time, made an attempt to give solution to this unending
problem. It could thus be seen that the very purpose of the enactment
is to find out permanent solution to the problems of vendors from
constant harassment on one hand and striking balance between rights
of the vendors and rights of other citizens on the other hand. We are
therefore of the considered view that if we adopt pedantic approach
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
and declare the statute to be unworkable, it will lead to nothing else
but continuation of problem which has remained unresolved for more
than four decades. We are of the considered view that this is one
enactment wherein, we must resort to a pragmatic approach, so as to
give effect to the intention of the legislature to solve this longstanding
issue.
CONCLUSIONS
61] In the Light of this legal position, we find that in order to make
the Act workable, the first elections to the TVC will have to be
conducted on the basis of surveys which were conducted under the
2009 policy. It could be noted that in 2013 Ekta Judgment21, Their
Lordships observed that till 2012 Bill becomes law, it will be apposite
for the Court to step in and direct that the 2009 Policy should be
implemented throughout the country. It could be seen that under sub-
clause (a) of Clause 4.5.1 of the said policy, there is a provision for
TVC. Clause (a) provides for constitution of the Committee, which
includes the Municipal Commissioner / Chief Executive Officer of the
urban local body as Chairperson. It also provides for representatives
21 2013(6) Bom. C.R. 481
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
of the local authority, planning authority, police, associations of street
vendors, resident welfare associations and Community Based
Organisations. Clause 4.5.2 deals with functions of TVCs. Clause (a)
deals with undertaking periodic survey / census to asses the increase
or decrease in the number of street vendors. Clause (b) deals with
registration of the street vendors and issuance of Identity Cards. It
will also be relevant to refer to clause (vii) of operative part of the
aforesaid Judgment in para 16, which mandates that all street
vendors/hawkers shall be registered in accordance with paragraph
4.5.4 of the 2009 Policy. It further mandates that once registered, the
street vendor / hawker, shall be entitled to operate in the area
specified by the Town Vending Committee.
62] It will be appropriate to refer to Rule 29 of the said Rules, which
reads thus:-
"29 Any work performed by local authority such
as survey of street vendors, issuing certificate of
vending, plan of street vending and the
resolutions of Town Vending Committee which
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
are in consistent with the provisions of the Act.
And were done as per the directions of Hon.
Supreme Court of India in Civil Application
No.4156-4157 of 2002 shall be deemed to have
been done under the provisions of these rules."
The said Rule provides that any work performed by the local authority
such as survey of street vendors, issuing certificate of vending, plan of
street vending and the resolutions of TVC which are consistent with
the provisions of the Act and were done as per the directions of Hon.
Supreme Court of India in Civil Application No.4156-4157 of 2002
shall be deemed to have been done under the provisions of the said
Rules.
63] No doubt that such a provision ought to have found place in the
main enactment itself, which would have resolved the entire issue.
However, it has to be taken into consideration that issue with regard
to rights of hawkers is in a fluid state for a period of more than forty
years. Their Lordships of the Apex Court, right from 1983, have been
dealing with the issue and issuing directions from time to time. It is
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
only after the directions were issued by Their Lordships of the Apex
Court, that the said Act has been enacted. We find that if the solution
as we have hereinafter enumerated, is not to be accepted, it will
further protract the delivery of benefits of the Act to the citizens, for
whom the same is enacted. It has to be noted that even after the said
Act has come into force, the scheme, as mandated to be framed within
six months from the date of the Act coming into force and the Rules to
be framed within one year, could not be framed. The situation has
been lamented by the Division Bench of this Court in Vile Parle Kelvani
Mandal (supra) in para 43 of its judgment. However, a difficulty again
may arise as to how a scheme could be framed in the absence of TVCs,
unless they are duly constituted under Section 22 of the said Act and
which are required to be mandatorily consulted as per the provisions
of Section 38 of the said Act. As a matter of fact, it is even the
argument of learned Counsels for the Petitioners that unless the TVC,
as provided under Section 22 of the said Act is duly constituted, the
Scheme under Section 38 cannot be framed.
64] It is pertinent to note that, in effect, the directions as contained in
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
para 16 of 2013 Ekta Judgment, are almost similar to the provisions
contained in the said Act. As as matter of fact, under clause (i) of para
16, Their Lordships had issued directions to the Chief Secretaries of
the State Governments and Administrators of the Union Territories to
ensure that TVCs are constituted in accordance with the provisions
contained in 2009 Policy. Their Lordships have further directed that
the representatives of various Organizations and street
vendors/hawkers shall be chosen by adopting the fair and transparent
mechanism. Clause (xii) of para 16 further reveals that, though the
State Governments, the Administration of Union Territories and
Municipal Authorities were given permission to amend the legislative
provisions and or delegated legislation, it was to bring them in tune
with the 2009 Policy. However, it was further clarified that even if
there is a conflict between 2009 Policy and the Municipal Laws,
insofar as they relate to street vendors/hawkers, then 2009 Policy shall
prevail. It could thus be seen that the enactment, which has been
enacted, is in furtherance to take forward the mandate as contained in
para 16 of 2013 Ekta Judgment. The 2013 Ekta Judgment as well as
the said Act emphasize on participation of representatives of street
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
vendors at every stage. We, therefore, find that if TVCs, as constituted
as per 2009 Policy, are entrusted the work of the first survey, the
legislative intent, as contained in Section 22 of the said Act of giving
40% representation to the representatives of the vendors, shall stand
given effect to.
65] The procedure that we propose to direct with regard to
conducting the first survey under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the
said Act and first elections to TVCs, in our view, takes care of giving
effect to the legislative intention of having participation of
representatives of vendors at every stage. If the survey is conducted by
the TVCs constituted under 2009 policy and elections are held to elect
the members under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 22 from
the registered voters, the duly constituted TVCs under the said Act can
discharge their duties which we have already enumerated
hereinabove. Needless to state that if the duly constituted TVCs
having elected representatives from the street vendors category, find
that fresh survey is required to be conducted, there is no embargo
under the statute. The only requirement under sub-section (1) of
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Section 3 is that the subsequent survey is required to be carried out at
least once in every five years. However, there is no prohibition for
conducting a fresh survey, prior to such period of five years if duly
constituted TVCs find it necessary.
66] As a matter of fact in pursuance of the aforesaid directions in
2009 Ekta Judgment22, the MCGM has already constituted TVC as per
2009 Policy under the Chairmanship of Commissioner of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation. The said Committee consists of Commissioner,
MMRDA, Police Commissioner, Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic),
Chief Fire Officer, Health Officer, 12 representatives of residents'
associations, NGOs, Lawyers, Town Planning, representatives of Banks,
retail traders welfare association and respected citizens. It has 12
members, who are representatives of various hawkers' associations. It
could thus be seen that out of 30 members, representation to the
hawkers is forty percent. It will not be out of place to mention that
some of the representatives of some of the Petitioner associations, are
also the members of the said Committee. It could thus be seen that
forty percent representation which is even mandated by the said Act, is
22 (2009) 17 SCC 151
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
given to the representatives of the hawkers. It could further be seen
that meetings of the said Committee have been held from time to time.
The views of the representatives of the hawkers have been duly
reflected in the various minutes of the meetings. It further appears
that in the meeting conducted on 07/07/2014, the Committee had
passed a Resolution to form 241 teams for conducting survey of the
vendors. Each squad was to consist of Inspector of Corporation from
Encroachment / Licensing Department, representatives of hawkers,
representatives of NGOs / residents association / traders association,
the Guard of the Municipal Corporation, local police constable. A
detailed programme for conducting survey was also finalized in the
said meeting. The survey as scheduled was conducted by MCGM. The
number of applications issued were 1,28, 443. The applications which
were found to be acceptable were 99,435 and expected eligible
applicants were found to be 2908. It could thus be seen that a detailed
procedure wherein representative of hawkers were also involved was
followed by the Respondent - MCGM. Mr. Sakhare has also placed on
record one of the sample applications. Perusal of the sample
application would reveal that while conducting survey, teams have
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
also done necessary documentation including photographing process.
67] We are therefore of the view, that insofar as MCGM is
concerned, survey is admittedly conducted after 1st May, 2014. We
therefore find that, there should be no impediment in considering the
survey conducted by the MCGM to be a first survey, as contemplated
under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act and that the
elections under category (d) of subs-section (2) of Section 22 be
conducted on the basis of the same.
68] In so far as other Corporations are concerned, the learned
Advocate General has made a statement that, in most of the
Corporations, TVCs have been constituted as per 2009 Policy. It would
be therefore appropriate that in such Municipal Corporations, if the
surveys are not yet conducted, survey should be conducted on the
pattern of MCGM. In so far as Municipal Corporation and Municipal
Council wherein TVCs are not yet formed, it will be appropriate to
direct all such Municipal Corporations and Municipal Council to
constitute TVCs in accordance with 2009 Policy and conduct first
survey as required under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, in
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
the light of what has been observed hereinabove.
69] It is further to be noted that Rule 15 of the said Rules, takes care
of the concern of the vendors, whose names are not included in the
vendors list. It will be relevant to refer to Rule 15, which reads thus:-
"15 Voters List - (1) The Municipal Commissioner or
the Chief Officer, as the case may be, shall publish the
voters list of registered street vendors three months
before the scheduled date of election. The suggestions
or objections shall be called within fifteen days and shall
be decided by the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief
Officer as the case may be, one month before the
scheduled date of election. For purpose of election of
street vendors to the Town Vending Committee, the list
of registered street vendors so finalized shall be the
voters list.
(2) The Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer, as
the case may be, shall provide the final voters list of
registered street vendors to the Labour Commissioner
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
for the purpose of electing representatives amongst the
registered street vendors."
It could thus be seen that, under the said Rules, Municipal
Commissioner or Chief Officer is required to publish voters' list of
registered voters three months before the scheduled date of election.
The suggestions and objections are required to be called within 15
days and they are further required to be decided by the Municipal
Commissioner / Chief Officer, one month before the scheduled date of
elections. It could therefore be seen that, if any of the street vendors,
who finds that though his name was entitled to be included in the
registered voters' list and it was not included, he could raise an
objection to that effect, which the authorities under the rules would be
bound to consider.
70] In so far as challenge to Rule 15 of the said Rules is concerned, it
is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that Rule
15, which empowers the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer to
publish voters' list of registered street vendors, the same is not
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
sustainable. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the
said exercise can only be carried out by the local authority. We find
that the said contention is without any substance. Clause (j) of sub-
section (2) of Section 36 enable the State Government to make Rules
for the manner of elections amongst the street vendors under clause
(d) of sub-section (2) of Section 22. It could thus be seen that the said
Rule is within the rule making power of the State Government. In any
case, the contention that the said exercise has to be carried out only by
local authority is totally impracticable. It will not be humanly
impossible for the local authority, which consists of elected members
to collectively carry out such a survey. Such a survey is to be carried
out by some executive authority, under the said local authority. The
Commissioner and CEO being highest executive authorities in the
Municipal Corporations and Municipal Council, can very well be
entrusted with such duty. Apart from that, as already discussed
hereinabove in the preceding paragraph, the Rule provides for an
opportunity to a street vendor who is aggrieved by his non-inclusion.
In that view of the matter, we find that challenge to Rule 15 would not
be sustainable.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
71] The next question is with regard to challenge to the said scheme.
In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State Government, it is
submitted that the scheme which is published by the said G.R DATED
09/01/2017 was found necessary, since under sub-section (1) of
Section 3 for conducting survey of existing town vendors, there has to
be a scheme for the guidance of the TVC. The tenor of the affidavit
itself would reveal that, the said scheme is a general scheme with
suggestive guidelines and is applicable to entire State of Maharashtra.
The tenor of the affidavit, would further reveal that the said scheme is
not a scheme as contemplated under Section 38, but a general scheme
for guidance of local authorities and TVCs. It has to be noted that
Section 38 mandates a scheme to be framed, after due consultation
with the local authority and the TVCs. Admittedly, the said scheme is
not framed after consultation with the local authorities and TVCs. We
are therefore of the view that the said Scheme cannot be considered to
be a scheme under Section 38 of the said Act.
72] The next challenge is with regard to the Government Resolution
dated 09/01/2017, which enables all the local authorities to constitute
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
TVCs and allied matters. We find that perusal of the said Act would
reveal that TVCs have been given an important role. TVC under the
Act is to constitute of forty percent of members from the category of
street vendors, to be elected by them. We are of the considered view
that the Government Resolution dated 09/01/2017 which directs the
TVCs to be constituted without there being representation of street
vendors, would defeat the very purpose of the Act, which emphasises
on participation of representatives of street vendors at all important
stages and, as such, the said Government Resolution, which provides
for doing away with the said mandatory requirement, would not be
sustainable.
73] In so far as the contention of the Petitioners that the Order
dated 01/12/2015 issued by Respondent No.1 thereby substituting the
words "within six months from the date of commencement of this Act,"
by the words "within six months from the date of coming into force of
the rules framed under section 36" is concerned, we find that by the
Order of Joint Secretary purportedly under sub-section (1) of Section
39 of the said Act, the same could not have been done and is totally
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
unsustainable. The said Order virtually amounts to amending the Act
which, in no case, could have been done by the Executive Authority
under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the said Act.
The said Order is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.
74] That leads us to the last question, as to whether after coming
into force of the said Act, non-vending zones, which were recognized
earlier have ceased to exist or not and as to whether hawkers would
be entitled to carry on their vending activities on any streets, even if
they fall in the part of non-hawking / non-vending zones recognized
earlier. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of the
Division Bench of this Court in Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal (supra).
"50 Section 33 gives overriding effect to the
provisions of the Street Vendors Act over the
provisions of any other law for the time being in
force or any other instrument having effect by
virtue of any other law. However, Section 33 does
not override the orders of the Court which were
passed earlier and therefore, the said orders can be
implemented notwithstanding the applicability of
the Act. Therefore, order dated 21st January, 2002
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
passed in Writ Petition No.1799 of 2001 can be
always implemented subject to prohibitory orders
passed by the City Civil Court or any other Court of
law. The said order has become final as even the
vendors who are fully aware of the order have not
challenged the same." (Emphasis supplied)
It could thus be seen that Division Bench of this Court has itself
observed that, though Section 33 gives overriding effect to the
provisions of the said Act, it does not override orders of the Court
which have been passed earlier and that the said orders can be
implemented notwithstanding the applicability of the Act.
75] It is pertinent to note that in 2004 Ekta Judgment 23, Their
Lordships of the Apex Court while approving 187 roads selected for
hawking also added 49 roads for being included in the hawking zone.
However, while doing so, BMC was to ensure that there was no
impediment or hindrance for vehicular traffic or pedestrians. The
approval of those 49 roads was subject to approval/NOC of traffic
police. It could thus be seen that vide the said order hawking was to
be restricted to 187 plus 49 roads. However, hawking in those 49
23 (2004) 1 SCC 625
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
additional roads was also subject to the same not causing any
impediment or hindrance for vehicular traffic or pedestrians and
subject to approval/NOC from traffic police.
76] It could further be seen that in 2009 Ekta Judgment 24, it was
sought to be contended that out of 49 roads, the Committee had
reduced certain roads, which was not permissible in view of the said
2004 Ekta Judgment. However, in para 17 of the 2009 Ekta
Judgment, the said contention is specifically rejected. It could further
be seen that when the matter was considered by the Apex Court while
delivering 2009 Ekta judgment, 248 roads were recommended as
hawking zone. The Committees had however recommended that
insofar as 27 roads are concerned, they fall in restrictive zone as
earmarked by clause (3) of para 14 of 2004 Ekta Judgment 25 as they
were within 100 meters from the place of worship, holy shrine,
educational institutions and hospitals or within 150 metres from any
municipal or other markets or from any railway station. A request
was made to relax Direction No.3 insofar as those 27 roads are
concerned. However, in para 20 of 2009 Ekta Judgment, Their
24 (2009) 17 SCC 151
25 (2004) 1 SCC 625
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Lordships have specifically rejected the said prayer.
77] It could further be seen that right from the first judgment in
Bombay Hawkers Union (supra), the Apex Court has consistently
recognized the concept of hawking zones and non-hawking zones.
Not only that, in 2009 Ekta Judgment, Their Lordships of the Apex
Court have clearly specified that total roads as hawking zone shall
remain only 221. We are therefore of the considered view that
insofar as area coming under the jurisdiction of MCGM is concerned,
till new vending and non-vending zones are earmarked and notified
by local authorities, in consultation with the duly constituted TVCs,
the hawking activity can be continued, only in areas which are
identified as hawking zones, as approved by the Apex Court and, in no
case, such activity can be permitted in non-hawking zone.
78] There is another angle to it. Right from the Judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Olga Tellis case (supra), it has been held that
footpath and pavements are public properties, which are intended to
serve convenience of general public. They are not laid for private use
and their use for private purpose frustrates the very object for which
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
they are carved out from portions of the public roads. The claim of
the pavement dwellers, that they have a right to put up constructions
on pavements and that of the pedestrians to make use of the
pavements for passing and re-passing, are competing claims and that,
the former should be preferred to the latter, has been specifically
rejected by the Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench in the
case of Sodan Singh (supra) further holds that while recognizing right
of hawker to transact business, it is subject to proper regulation in the
interest of general convenience of the public, including health and
security considerations. It has been held that if hawkers were to be
conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold the society to
ransom by squatting on the busy thoroughfares, thereby paralysing all
civic life. However, on the other hand, if such right is properly
regulated according to the exigency of the circumstances, the small
traders on the sidewalks can considerably add to the comfort and
convenience of general public, by making available ordinary articles of
everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. It has been held that for
recognizing right of the hawkers to hawk on roads, proper regulation
is necessary, otherwise the very object of laying roads to facilitate
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
traffic may be affected. The contention that a citizen has
fundamental right to occupy a particular place on the pavement,
where he can squatt and engage in trading business has been
specifically negatived.
79] Perusal of para 24 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sodan
Singh (supra), would reveal that the demand of the Petitioners that
the hawkers must be permitted to carry out their trade on every road
has been categorically rejected. It has been held that if a road is not
wide enough to conveniently manage the traffic on it, no hawking
could be permitted at all or may be sanctioned only once in a week,
like Sunday, when the traffic would be lesser. It has further been
held that hawking may also be justifiably prohibited near hospitals or
where necessity of security measures, so demands.
80] In 2004 Ekta Judgment, Their Lordships have specifically put a
restriction, that there should be no hawking within 100 metres from
any place of worship, holy shrine, educational institutions and
hospitals and within 150 metres from any municipal or other markets
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
or from any railway station. It has further been held that there should
be no hawking on footbridges and overbridges. In 2009 Ekta
Judgment, recommendation of the Committee, to relax the said
condition insofar as 27 roads are concerned, is specifically rejected.
81] We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vyaparti Kalyan
Mandal Main Pushpa (supra) and of the learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court in the case of Vaiso Jain (supra), holding that no
hawking can be permitted in non-hawking zones. We find that the
views taken in both the judgments lay down the correct position of
law.
82] Insofar as judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala
High Court in the case of Thankappan Poonthoppil vs The District
Collector, Trivandrum, delivered in WP(C) No.33114 of 2014 (L) is
concerned, the perusal of the said judgment would reveal that, it has
not taken into consideration the earlier judgments rendered on the
issue, by Their Lordships of the Apex Court. As such we are of the
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
considered view that the said judgment, is of no assistance to the case
of the Petitioners.
83] Insofar as the Judgment of the Chennai High Court in the case
of B. Noor Ahmed and Ors vs. State of Tamilnadu, delivered in Writ
Petition No.18397 of 2014 is concerned, the same is again interpreting
the provisions of the said Act and the directions which are given, are
identical in terms with the directions, that are issued by Division
Bench of this Court, in Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal (supra). We have
already observed hereinabove, that Division Bench protects such of the
vendors who were existing on 01/05/2014. As such, there cannot be
quarrel with the view taken by the Chennai High Court.
84] We are therefore of the considered view that while considering
the rights of the hawkers to conduct their vending business on streets,
we will have to balance the rights of the pedestrians to walk on the
footpaths and the citizens to use the roads for the purpose of plying
their vehicles. If the contention of the Petitioners, that after coming
into effect of the Act, now there are no non-hawking zones and they
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
are permitted to hawk anywhere in the City and Respondents -
Authorities should be issued mandamus, not to come in the way of
their so doing, is to be accepted, it will create a chaos in all the cities.
If the argument is to be accepted, then there will be no regulations till
the same are framed in accordance with the said Act; the operation of
which is still in limbo.
85] It will not be out of place to mention a recent unfortunate
incident, which has occurred in the City of Mumbai on a narrow foot-
over bridge. On account of mad rush of the passengers, there was
commotion on the bridge, which led to loss of 22 precious human
lives. The presence of the large number of hawkers on the foot-over
bridge is said to be one of the major contributing factor in the said
mishap. As discussed hereinabove, we are faced with a situation to
balance the rights of the hawkers to do vending business to earn their
livelihood on one hand and rights of the citizens to use the foot-paths
and roads without causing any obstruction and also ensure their
security on the other hand. We ask a question to ourselves as to what
would be the effect if the contention of the Petitioners that they are
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
free to do hawking anywhere in the City, is to be accepted. There will
be no regulations to regulate the business of hawking. The Authorities
will be powerless to take action against the hawkers, even if the
business of hawking causes threat to free-flow of traffic and also
causes threat to the security of citizens. Imagine a situation wherein
entrance of the hospital is flooded with the hawkers thereby even
preventing access to a serious patient in the hospital. Imagine a
situation wherein fire takes place in busy locality and on account of
encroachment of hawkers on the roads, fire brigade is not in a position
to reach the spot. Obviously, the legislative intent could not have
been to permit all this.
We are therefore of the considered view that the contention that
now there are no non-hawking zones and the hawkers are free to do
their vending business anywhere in the city, is without merit and
therefore deserves to be rejected.
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
86] In the result the following order: -
O R D E R
(i) The first survey of all street vendors, who
existed on 01/05/2014, as provided in sub-section
(1) of Section 3 of the said Act, shall be conducted
by TVCs, which are constituted as per Policy of
2009 as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
2013 Ekta judgment.26
(ii) Wherever such surveys are conducted after
01/05/2014 by TVCs, as constituted under 2009
Policy, they shall be construed to be the first
surveys as contemplated under sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the said Act.
(iii) All Municipal Corporations and Municipal
26 2013(6) Bom. C.R. 481
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Councils where TVCs are not yet established as per
2009 Policy, are directed to constitute TVCs as per
2009 Policy, having due representation to the
various stake holders, including the representatives
of the street vendors as provided under the said
policy within a period of six weeks from today.
(iv) In such Municipal Corporations or Municipal
Councils where no survey is conducted after
01/05/2014, the survey of street vendors, as
provided under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
said Act, shall be conducted adopting the MCGM
procedure within a period of three months from
the date on which TVCs as per 2009 Policy are
constituted.
(v) The street vendors who are found eligible as
per survey conducted under clauses (i), (ii) and
(iv) above, shall form electorate for conducting
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
first elections of the members from the category
earmarked in clause (d) of sub-section (2) of
Section 22.
(vi) The challenge to the validity of Rule 15 is
rejected. However, it is directed that Municipal
Commissioners and the Chief Officers, as the case
may be, shall publish voters' list of registered street
vendors on the basis of survey conducted under
clauses (i),(ii) & (iv) hereinabove.
(vii) It is held and declared that Government
Resolution dated 09/01/2017 vide which a scheme
is framed purportedly under section 38 of the said
Act, cannot be treated as scheme as contemplated
under Section 38 of the said Act. However, there
should be no impediment in the same being
construed as general guide line to frame scheme
under Section 38 of the said Act, after consultation
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
with the local authority and the Town Vending
Committee.
(viii) The Government Resolution dated
09/01/2017, which provides for constitution of
TVCs without there being representation to the
members from category mentioned in clause (d) of
sub-section (2) of Section 22, is held to be
ultravires to the said Act and therefore quashed
and set aside.
(ix) The contention of the Petitioners that after
coming into force of the said Act, there are no non-
hawking zones and that the hawkers are entitled to
carry on their vending activities on all the roads in
cities is rejected.
(x) It is held and declared that insofar as area
falling under MCGM is concerned till the vending
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
and non-vending zones are duly notified in
accordance with the said Act, the hawking
activities would be permitted only on roads which
have been approved as hawking zones in 2009
Ekta Judgment of the Apex Court27.
(xi) In the areas, other than the areas falling
under the jurisdiction of the MCGM, if the hawking
and non-hawking zones are already notified
earlier, either under executive order or judicial
order then till the vending and non-vending zones
are duly notified in accordance with the said Act,
hawking activities will only be permitted in
hawking zones and no hawking activities shall be
permitted in non-hawking zones.
(xii) It is further directed that in view of the
direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
2004 Ekta Judgment, which is duly reiterated by
27 (2009) 17 SCC 151
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009 Ekta
Judgment, no hawking would be permitted within
100 metres from any place of worship, holy shrine,
educational institutions and hospitals or within
150 metres from any municipal or other markets or
from any railway station. It is also directed that
no hawking would be permitted on footbridges and
overbridges.
(xiii) It is clarified that outside places of worship
hawkers can be permitted to sell only such items
as are required by the devotees for offering to the
deity or for placing in the place of worship e.g.
flowers, sandalwood, candles, agarbattis, coconuts
etc.
(xiv) Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs.
(xv) In view of the disposal of all the above
WP/652/2017 &
PIL/98/2016 with connected matters
Petitions, all interlocutory applications, Notices of
Motion, Chamber Summons taken out therein also
stand disposed off.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.)
