Disposed

Rajiv Gandhi Hawkers Union and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Chief Secretay Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Dec 2022PIL/129/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL, the High Court disposed of the petition seeking directions to implement the Street Vendors Act and issue licenses to 75 vendors based on a survey. The Court held that the survey and eligibility must be considered and directed the Corporation to implement a previous judgment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajiv Gandhi Hawkers Union and Ors. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

17-pil-129-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.129 OF 2022

¶4

Rajiv Gandhi Hawkers Union
& Others ..Petitioners.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra
& Others ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr. A. A. Siddiquie i/b. A. A. Siddiquie & Associates, for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, G.P with Mr. M. M. Pable, AGP for Respondent No.1-
State.

¶6

Mr. N. R. Bubna, for the Respondent-Corporation.

¶7

Digitally signed by SMITA SMITA RAJNIKANT RAJNIKANT JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2022.12.13 09:58:15 +0530

¶8

P.C:-

¶9

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
 S.G.CHAPALGAONKAR,J.
DATED : 12th DECEMBER, 2022.

¶10

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned Counsel for the Corporation.

¶11

2The Petitioner seeks directions against Respondent No.2 to
ensure effective implemenation of the provisions of the Street Vendors
(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
and in tune with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Ville Parle Kelvani Mandal v/s. The MCGM & Others (WP No.224
of 2011). So also in the case of Janhit Manch v/s. MCGM & Others (PIL
36 0f 2010) by issuing certificate of vending to 75 street vendors as per
the notified list in the present PIL.

¶12

3The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that once the

¶13

1 of 2

¶14

S.R.JOSHI

¶15

17-pil-129-2022.doc

¶16

survey is conducted of the hawkers, then they have to be issued with the
vending license. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
survey of 810 hawkers has been conduced. The Corporation may consider
their case in tune of the survey report and as to whether they are eligible
for the vending license.

¶17

4Naturally, the survey has to be conduced by the Corporation,
its authorities and officers and upon survey being conduced and
considering the eligibility of the hawkers, the vending license can be
issued. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that
vending license cannot be given in ‘No hawking zone’ also needs to be
appreciated.

¶18

5In fact, the law with regard to the hawkers is considered by
the Division Bench of this Court in various Writ Petitions bearing W.P.
No.652 of 2017 with connected Writ Petitions under judgment and order
dated 1st November, 2017. This Court had issued various directions for the
same. Respondent-Corporation so also the hawkers are bound by the said
judgment delivered by this Court. The Corporation shall implement and
enforce the said judgment in true letter and spirit.

¶19

6With these observations, PIL is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

(S.G.CHAPALGAONKAR,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,ACJ.)

¶21

2 of 2

¶22

S.R.JOSHI

Rajiv Gandhi Hawkers Union and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Chief Secretay Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajiv Gandhi Hawkers Union and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Chief Secretay Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilas Kailas Pawara vs the State of Maharashtra Public Works Department through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Yuvraj Vitthal Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sachin S/O. Babulal Bopche Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Principal Secretary, Urban Devpt. Dept., Mumbai and Others

Occupational Health Safety Foundation Thr (President and General Secretary ) Vs the Principal Secretary Ministry Dept of Labour and Ors.

Lawyers for Earth Justice and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Forest Department and Anr.

Annadurai Palani Swami Devendra vs the State of Maharashtra and 12 Oher

Dileep v Saptarshi and 2 Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai-H West Ward and 3 Ors.

Dipika Dinesh Mondkar vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Prashant Shankar Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Anandrao Maruti Pachatake Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Dept. of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Jayanand Hemant Chavan Vs Bank of India through Zonal Manager