Bombay HC rebukes BMC for lack of hawker management in Mumbai

Pedestrians are forced to walk on the road as hawkers encroach on footpaths. FILE PIC/NIMESH DAVE

A bench of the Bombay High Court - comprising Justice A S Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata - while hearing a suo motu PIL on the growing issue of illegal hawking in the city, once again aimed sharp criticism at the BMC for its inept handling of the situation. The court pointed out the persistent presence of hawkers despite the BMC council's claim of repeated removal, highlighting the failure to implement action on the ground. The court also suggested that the state consider deploying the State Reserve Police Force (SRPF) to assist BMC officials during operations against illegal hawkers.

In a sharp rebuke to the BMC, Justice Gadkari initially offered to hold back the matter for 10 minutes and direct senior BMC officials responsible for keeping the roads hawker-free to take a round and see if the orders were implemented. But the BMC counsel, after a short argument, finally admitted that the civic body failed to keep the city 100 per cent hawker-free, which is when Justice Gadkari decided to continue the hearing without taking a 10 minutes pause.

The BMC counsel, admitting failure, said, "We are taking regular action but, unfortunately, hawkers are coming back. It becomes very risky for us (BMC officers) to continuously go to the same spot. Lordships are right that hawking has not stopped 100 per cent. The vending committee is not in place. We took all efforts to conduct elections and were on the verge of declaring the results but the Supreme Court put a stay on the results."

The advocate representing the BAR council in the hearing pointed out, "During a previous order in 2017, the police were directed to provide protection to civic officials while they are removing hawkers. There is no point in bringing up the same issues in court again. We are also looking for a long-term solution to this issue but the immediate concern is the hawkers encroaching footpaths and roads which previously had led to a comment from the bench that people are forced to walk on roads."

The BAR council, citing multiple previous orders from hearings before multiple benches of the court, added, "There can only be one truth. BMC here is showing pictures of roads where action against hawkers is being taken but when we visit these roads, we can see hawkers in a large numbers on the same roads."

The court acknowledged that the local police resources might sometimes be stretched too thin, making it difficult for them to provide necessary protection to municipal staff when they take action against hawkers. Citing this potential shortfall, Justice Gadkari recommended, "SRPF personnel can be brought in to ensure that BMC officials carry out their duties." The state is yet to file a reply to this suggestion. The counsel representing the state informed the court, "We will be more than happy to provide our assistance in this matter."

Justice Gadkari also asked the BMC counsel to take a round on the streets after court hours. He commented, "Just take a walk on the streets and tell us what you feel. I have personally experienced the issue of hawkers. Most of the advocates don't even get a place for parking, in spite of paying for parking, let alone the rest of the city."

The BMC counsel also said, "We (BMC) have issued licences to the hawkers who are in hawking zones." To this, Justice Gadkari questioned, "Not a single hawker is illegal in the hawking zones? What about the new hawkers that spawn every day? Have you issued licences to them as well?"

The BMC again pointed to the stay orders of the Supreme Court regarding the election results of the Town Vending Committee (TVC). The bench cracked down on the civic body stating, "The issue regarding the constitution of the TVC cannot be linked to all problems. The TVC is just one part of it."
The bench also stated, "This issue also has a societal impact which cannot be neglected."