Harishankar Jaganath Yadav v. Brihan Mumbai Corporation through the Municipal Commissioner

Bombay HC21 Jul 2025WP/2645/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC OOCJ, W.P. 2645/2025, decided 08-09-2025 (Ghuge & Bhobe, JJ.). Footpath tea/coffee vending at M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai; petitioner had no licence, permission or certificate of vending; petition withdrawn with liberty to apply to Respondent No.2 under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; Corporation cautioned to act strictly per statute/approved scheme and to drive out illegal hawkers blocking footpaths. Disposed as withdrawn; no costs; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn, on instructions, with liberty to make an application to Respondent No.2 under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 before commencing vending. ¶¶28

Harishankar Jaganath Yadav vs Brihan Mumbai Corporation through the Municipal Commissioner — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner could be permitted to sell tea and coffee on the footpath on M.G. Road, near the corner of Mulla House, Hutatma Chowk, Fountain, Fort, Mumbai - 400001, despite lacking a licence, permission or certificate of vending to operate a stall in the hawking zone.

¶¶18

Court's answer

Accepting the Petitioner's on-instructions submission to withdraw the Petition and apply to Respondent No.2 under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition as withdrawn with liberty to move such an application.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The Corporation was cautioned to strictly follow the provisions under the statute and, if permissible strictly in terms of the applicable scheme approved under the statute, permission may be granted.obiter¶¶24
Since persons allegedly conduct businesses on the footpath in front of Mulla House (including a sugarcane juice vendor and persons using gas stoves for tea/coffee vending), the Corporation should undertake a drive to ensure illegal hawkers are not permitted to block footpaths/pavement blocks meant for pedestrians.obiter¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, OOCJ, Writ Petition No. 2645 of 2025 (Ghughé & Bhobe, JJ., 08-09-2025) - Harishankar Jaganath Yadav v. Brihan Mumbai Corporation & Anr.: The Petitioner wished to sell tea and coffee on the footpath near Mulla House corner, Hutatma Chowk, Fountain, Fort, Mumbai. The Corporation submitted that the Petitioner held no licence to operate a stall in the hawking zone, no permission and no certificate of vending. The Court expressed its disinclination; on instructions, the Petitioner withdrew the Petition, undertaking to apply to Respondent No.2 under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and to commence business only upon receipt of permission. The Petition was accordingly disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to move such application. The Court cautioned the Corporation to strictly follow the statute and the approved scheme when considering permissions, and observed that, in view of alleged unauthorised footpath businesses (including a sugarcane juice vendor and gas-stove tea/coffee sellers) in front of Mulla House, the Corporation should undertake a drive against illegal hawkers blocking footpaths/pavements meant for pedestrians.

¶1

5-WP-2645-2025-(OS).odt

¶2

Digitally signed SUNNYANKUSHRAO by SUNNYANKUSHRAOTHOTE THOTE Date: 2025.09.10 11:22:41 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2645 OF 2025

¶5

Harishankar Jaganath Yadav ...Petitioner Versus

¶6

Brihan Mumbai Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Adv. Pranil Sonawane a/w Mr. Raj Chaurasia, Adv. Vedashree Phadke, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Adv. Pushpa Yadav a/w Ms. Vaishali Ugale i/by Adv. K. Punjabi for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶10

¶11

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner

¶15

and the learned Advocate on behalf of the Municipal Corporation.

¶16

We expressed our disinclination.

¶17

The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that

¶18

the Petitioner does not have a license to operate a stall in the hawking zone. He does not have any permission. He does not have any certificate of vending.

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

SUNNY THOTE

¶21

5-WP-2645-2025-(OS).odt

¶22

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits on

¶23

instructions that he would withdraw this Petition and make an application to Respondent No.2, by mentioning the statute/provisions under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. Only after he receives such a permission, he would commence the business of selling tea and coffee on M.G. Road, near the corner of Mulla House, Hutatma Chowk, Fountain, Fort, Mumbai – 400001.

¶24

We caution the Corporation that they should strictly follow the provisions under the statute and if it is permissible strictly in terms of the scheme applicable, which is approved under the statute, the permission may be granted. Those who do not have such permission, keeping in view that the learned Advocate for the Petitioner contends that people have businesses on the footpath in front of Mulla House, a sugarcane juice vendor is also selling juice and there are people using gas stoves for preparing tea and coffee for vending purpose, that the Corporation should undertake a drive to ensure that illegal hawkers are not permitted to block the footpaths/pavement blocks etc., which are otherwise meant for the pedestrians.

¶25

2 of 3

¶26

SUNNY THOTE

¶27

5-WP-2645-2025-(OS).odt

¶28