The High Court of Bombay dismissed a PIL petition seeking direcuons for implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The court held no public interest was involved as hawkers have their own union access to court.
None. The petition for Public Interest Litigation was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(PILL 122 of 2015)
vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 122 OF 2015
Vijay Vitthal Kale and Ors. ….Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …..Respondents
Mr.Ajay Tripathi for Petitioners Mr.M.S. Karnik for Respondent No.1
Mr.D.A. Nalavade – Government Pleader a/w. Mr. M.A. Sayyed -AGP for Respondent State
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & Dr. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2015 P.C. :
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or any other direction to be give to the Respondent No.1 to 4 to call the records on what basis Respondents has not implemented The Street Vendors
(Protection Of Livelihood An Regulation Of Street Vending)
Act, 2014 in accordance of law and thus victimizing the poor
1/3
(PILL 122 of 2015)
and innocent street vendors by depriving of their fundamental rights;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may please to issue Notice to the Respondents calling upon them as to why proceedings shall not be initiated against them for not implementing the Street Vending Act, 2014;
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or any other direction to be given to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and concerned authorities to implement The Street Vendors (Protection Of Livelihood And Regulation Of Street Vending) Act, 2014;
(d) That the direction may be given to The State Maharashtra Government to reimburse the penalty amount with bank interest which is imposed upon the innocent street vendors illegally after 2nd May, 2014 when the Street Vending Act, 2014 came into force.
(e) Pass such other and further Order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2/3
Vaishali Tikam
Litigation. Hence no public interest is involved. Moverover, the hawkers have their own Union and they have access to the Court and they can file their own petition or seek appropriate relief before the appropriate Forum. Hence, PIL is dismissed.
[Dr. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present petition qualifies as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Whether street vendors constitute an adequately represented group for PIL proceedings.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Vitthal Kale and Ors.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
V. M. Kanade
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
