With lawyers brandishing mid-day’s Tuesday front page in courtroom, counsels for civic body and administration face the heat
BMC taking action against hawkers at D N Road in Fort after a Bombay High Court’s order last month. File pics/Atul Kamble
Bombay High Court on Tuesday voiced strong dissatisfaction over the handling of illegal hawkers in Mumbai. Citing mid-day’s report, ‘This Borivli hawker market has killed several BEST services’, the court addressed a suo motu PIL on the issue. An advocate representing the bar council presented the report in court, prompting the judges to discuss the gravity of the situation.
Several licenced hawkers and hawker unions have intervened in the PIL, raising concerns about their rights being infringed. An advocate for a group of licenced hawkers stated, “Whenever the court passes an order, the civic body sweeps away all hawkers, licenced or not.”
ADVERTISEMENT
In response, the division bench of Justice A S Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata clarified, “We are not concerned with licenced hawkers—they have the legal right to vend goods. Our focus is on illegal hawkers. How is it determined whether a hawker is licenced?”
The advocates representing various hawker groups explained that there are three types of hawkers: those with vending certificates (licenced), those without certificates (illegal), and a third category of hawkers who are recognised in surveys but have not been issued certificates. The third group, they said, is most affected and often has to prove their recognised status predating the Street Vending Act (SVA).
After hearing these arguments, the bench directed all parties to compile a list of licenced hawkers to form an interim Town Vending Committee (TVC), which will conduct a new survey and later hold elections to constitute the TVC. The previous TVC election results were not released due to a Supreme Court stay following multiple petitions alleging incomplete voter lists.
While presenting the mid-day report, the bar council advocate argued, “This report shows the impact of hawkers blocking roads. This location, Borivli West, is listed as one of the locations that are constantly monitored by the BMC, yet hawkers occupy the entire road.”
The BMC counsel explained the civic body’s challenges, noting, “We continuously remove hawkers, but the police need to ensure they don’t return.” Citing a prior court order, the BMC’s counsel pointed out that the police are responsible for preventing evicted hawkers from coming back.
In response, the state representative said, “One of our main concerns is the formation of the TVC to regulate illegal hawking. We provide police protection whenever requested by the BMC, with vans and officers stationed to prevent hawkers from returning.”
Commenting on an earlier pilot project, a senior counsel for the state noted, “As far as I am aware, there are no hawkers between CST and the high court.”
Justice Khata expressed frustration, saying, “It’s not enough to say that police are protecting BMC officers. Beat marshals must be present to prevent hawkers from returning once removed. If BMC is doing its job, there is clearly an issue on your end.”
He continued, “When officers arrive, they should ask for licences. If none are shown, action must be taken, and BMC should remove the goods. Despite claims that beat marshals and vans are stationed, hawkers still return after BMC takes action.”
Criticising the state further, he added, “You are permitting hawkers yet failing to control the situation. Earlier, we instructed the use of reserved police forces to avoid manpower issues. Hawkers are overwhelming the city; no street, shop, or shopping area is hawker-free.”
The bar council’s senior counsel pointed out that the Municipal Act and Police Act authorise police and BMC to remove hawkers. He criticised the BMC’s inspection reports, saying, “These aren’t even licences but inspection reports. Every licence shown in the report has expired.”
Justice Khata remarked, “Unfortunately, judges also travel. We see the situation firsthand. You claim measures are in place, yet hawkers return and operate in the presence of state-assigned beat marshals and police vans.” The bench concluded by observing, “The Street Vendors Act has come into effect but has not been effectively implemented.”
Netizens react
Netizens on X expressed dissatisfaction with authorities, reacting to the mid-day report
Malhar @ BackchodGPT, “I have never dared to enter this lane in my car during the day. It’s only drivable late at night.”
Fashionista @IndianDamsel, “All parties are to blame—sellers, buyers & authorities. Pre-election cleanup happens, but it’ll worsen post Nov 24! Strict, permanent action needed!”
Nilesh Saiya @nksaiya, “We pay BMC property tax, income tax, GST, entertainment tax, and all other taxes for this?”
Many other users pointed out similar issues across Mumbai and the MMR region, expressing frustration with the situation.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
