11. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 11
invited my attention to the cause-title of the writ petition to urge
that the age of the petitioner Nos.6, 9, 10 and 11 indicates that
prior to 20 years they were minors and, therefore, the plea raised
by the petitioners is false. He submitted that accepting stand of the
Municipal Council that the project of Khau Galli was initiated in
2019. As per the averments in the written statement, the project is
yet to be completed. It is only after such project is completed and
the defendant No.2 permits petitioners, they could have claim
rights to carry on business on the public street. According to him,
such project cannot be implemented on the suit property as this
Court in Writ Petition No.652 of 2017 held that no hawking zone
can be created within 100 meters from any place of worship, holy
shrine, educational institution and hospital and within 150 meters
from any municipal or other market or any railway station. He
invited my attention to the resolution of sanction of the project of
Khau Galli which indicates that the suit property is abutting school
and, therefore, within 100 meters from the school activity of
hawking could not have been permitted by the Municipal Council.
He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in Original Side Writ Petition (P) NO.3962 of 2018 in
Venkat A. Bhasha Boina v. Mumbai Municipal
Corporation & Anr. decided on 11 October 2019.
