Holding

The committees acted within the Supreme Court's mandate; reductions of hawking‑zone roads do not violate hawkers' constitutional rights, and licensed hawkers may continue without a draw of lots, while distance restrictions and other conditions remain enforceable.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the committees constituted to refine the hawking‑zone scheme in Mumbai had exceeded the Court's earlier approval of 187 roads as hawking zones. It held that the committees acted within the Court's directions and their reduction of some roads did not deprive hawkers of their constitutional right, which is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The Court affirmed that hawking is a lawful occupation under Article 19(1)(g) but must observe distance restrictions from places of worship, schools and hospitals. It allowed licensed hawkers to continue operating without participating in a draw of lots, permitted handicapped hawkers to retain their larger stalls even in non‑hawking zones, and rejected the committees' proposal to relax distance norms. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to implement the scheme, draw lots for the remaining unlicensed pitches, and dismissed all intervention and writ petitions except a pending contempt petition, while directing the State to frame regulations in line with the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors.

Issues considered

The committees' reduction of roads declared as hawking zones: whether it upset the Supreme Court's earlier approval.
Whether the reduction of hawking‑zone roads deprives hawkers of their Article 19(1)(g) right.
The applicability of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) to street hawking.
Whether licensed hawkers must participate in a draw of lots for hawking pitches.
The permissibility of relaxing distance restrictions from places of worship, educational institutions, hospitals and markets.
The rights of handicapped hawkers regarding stall dimensions and location.
The role of the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors and the State's duty to frame regulations.
The validity of intervention applications filed by various associations.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 19(6)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

Subjects

Article 19(1)(g)reasonable restrictionshawking zonesstreet vendorslicensingdraw of lotshandicapped hawkersNational Policy on Urban Street Vendorsintervention applicationsmunicipal corporation

Judgment

+
A MAHARASHTRA EKTA HA WKWERS UNION AND ANR.
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 12, 2007

B (H.K. SEMA AND 8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Constitution of Jndia, 1950-Article 19(l)(g)

Right to hawk on road side-Supreme Court ir. principle approving
C roads as hawking zones but permitting Committee appointed by it to further
consider whether hawking can be allowed on such roads-Committee
reducing number of those roads and suggesting relaxation of conditions
imposed by the Court on some roads-Correctness of-Held-In reducing
number of roads, Committee exercised their powers in consonance with
D direction.; issued by the Court and did not upset its approval-Directions in
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai,
(2004) I SCC 625 clarified-Though hawking on roadsides fell within
expression "occupation, trade or business" in Article 19 (1) (g) a/Constitution
of India, 1950, reduction of some roads by Committee did not deprive hawkers
their right to hawk since it was subject to reasonable restrictions under
E Article 19(6) thereof-However, suggestion of Committee to relax condition
of hawking zones on some roads not being within I 001150 mtrs from places
of worship and educational institutes, rejected in view of consistent judicial
opinion in that regard-Recommendation of committee that licensed hawkers
already operating in hawking Zones be allowed to continue irrespective of
F draw of lots for unlicensed hawkers accepted-Handicapped hawkers
permitted to have stalls of 1m. x 2m. as provided in their license, subject to f, -
verifications by Committee of their locomotor disability and need to take
assistance of wheelchairs, crutches etc-Other aspects of report of Committees
considered, and appropriate directions issued.

G National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004-Section IO./-
Regulations to be framed by Statelf,Held-They should be in consonance
with aims and objects of the National Policy. to render some sort of succor
to urban street vendors to eke out a living through hawking-Also, State
Government shall frame them independently without being influenced by any

H 448
+
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS l'r-;101' , .. \1UO:ICll'AL CORl'N. GREATER MUMBAI 449

._}._ scheme or any direction issued by Court in interregnum- Such schemes and A
-firections issued by Court to be considered as pure(v temporary in nature,
subject to and valid till regulations framed by State Government in terms of
Section JO. I of National Policy are implemented

In Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai, 12004) l sec 625 in paragraph 13 of judgment, this Court B
approved additional 49 roads as hawking Zones, but subject to the approval/
NOC from the Traffic Police. It was also clarified that even though these roads
may be within a hawking Zone, the restrictions regarding distances from
railway stations, hospitals, educational institutions, places of worship etc. on
that road, if any, continued to apply. After noticing draft scheme prepared C
pursuant to judgment in Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation, (19851 3 SCC 528, a Committee was constituted for
consideration thereof. However, in paragraph 16, it was clarified that merely
because in the scheme, as sanctioned, an area has been shown as a hawking
zone or a non hawking zone, it will not preclude the Committee from
considering whether hawking can be permitted on that road/street. With D
regard to handicapped hawkers, who were not covered by Maharashtra Ekta,
said judgment was modified by subsequent orders of this Court permitting
handicapped persons who had license for running the PCOs/Aarey/Sarita
stalls to continue to run them even in non-hawking Zones, subject to conditions
mentioned therein. As number of associations were seeking to intervene, this E
Court clarified that each of them had to file in Court, and also furnish to the
Bombay Municipal Corporation, a list of all its members with their addresses,
and they along with their members were required to file an undertaking before
the Court to the effect that they will cooperate with the Bombay Municipal
Corporation in the implementation of the Scheme. Any Association or member
- -t who did not file list/ undertaking was not to be considered for allotment of F
space. Also, two more Committees were directed to be constituted; the earlier
established Committee was directed to deal with Zones 1 and 2, and two new
ones were directed to deal with Zones 3 and 4, and 5 and 6, respectively. These
three Committees submitted their reports suggesting some deletions/
additions. Thereupon, the matter has come before this Court once again for G
consideration of those reports and issuance of further directions.

Hawkers contended that (i) the Committees had upset the approval of
tile Court for roads as hawking Zones, and this was not permissible (ii) due
to reduction/deletion of some roads, approved as hawking Zones by the Court,
they have been deprived of their right to hawk on the streets declared as H
+
I

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A hawking Zones. This Court had also to consider the suggestion of the ;_
Committees in respect of some roads to modify and relax its earlier direction
of hawking Zones not being within 100/150 mtrs. from the places of worship
and educational institutes, and accommodate some more hawkers in regard
to certain spots in Zo'ne-1 and II.

B Dismissing the Writ petitions and Contempt petitions except Contempt
petition No. 140 of 2006 and directing that the matters be listed after Six
months, the Court

HELD: 1. To answer the question whether the Committees upset the
approval of the Court, directions in paragrap.hs 13 and 16 of Maharashtra
C Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai, 12004) 1
SCC 625 need to be harmonized. Reading paragraphs 13 and 16 conjointly
would clearly show that although in principle 187 roads were approved as
hawking Zones, the Committees were permitted to further consider whether
hawking can be permitted on such road/street or not Therefore, the contention
of the petitioners that the Committees had reduced the roads, which had been
D declared the hawking Zones by this Court, without any authority, must be
rejected. The Committees had exercised their powers in consonance with the
directions issued by the Court. I Paras 15 and 16) [462-G; 463-CI

2.1. The other contention that due to reduction/deletion of some roads,
E approved as hawking Zones by the Court, the hawkers have been deprived of
their right to hawk on the streets declared as hawking Zones has also no
substance. This contention a_Iso deserves to be rejected outright. [Para 18)
[463-D)

2.2. The hawking on roadsides fell within the expres~ion "occupation,
trade or business" in Article 19 (l) (g) but that it was subject to reasonable
F restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. (Para 3) (455-F) ~-
Olga Tellis v. Bo1nbay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545;
referred to

Sadan Singh and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors.,
G 11989[ 4 sec 155, relied on
2.3. The entire controversy has been set at rest in Maharashtra Ekta
Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai, [2004) l SCC -
r~
625, and cannot be reopened. [Para 5[

- 3. Out of 248 roads, recommended as hawking Zones by the
H Committees, 27 roads fall within 100/150 mtrs. from the places of worship
+
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS UNION 1·. MUNICIPAL CORPN., GREATER MUMBAI
451

A and educational institutes. The suggestion of the Committees to modify and A
relax direction in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal
'
Corporation of Greater Mumbai, [2004] 1 SCC 625 that there should be no
hawking within 100 meters from any place of worship, holy shrine, educational
institutions and hospitals or within 150 meters from any municipal or other
markets or from any railway station, is rejected. Such suggestion cannot be
B
• accepted because this has been the consistent view even in Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation, [1985) 3 SCC 545, which has been adopted
by this Court. Therefore, the 27 roads, identified and suggested by the
~~ } Committees and included in total roads of248, have to be deducted. [Para 20]

4. The question whether licensed hawkers already operating in hawking
Zones should be allowed to continue irrespective of draw of lots had been kept
c
open by this Court to be decided after the submission of the Committees'
Report. The Committees recommended that it would not be advisable for the
licensed hawkers who are hawking for the last so many years to stand in a
queue for the draw of lots along with unlicensed hawkers. Solicitor General
appearing for B.M.C. has no objection if the licensed hawkers, already D
operating in hawking Zones, should be allowed to continue irrespective of
-1,
draw oflots. The suggestion of the Committees is accepted. (Para 22]
[465-B-C)

5. Total pitches now available in the hawking Zones are (23950 minus
15159) = 8791. For these 8791, there shall be draw of lots. Each Committee E
shall print a format for draw of lots. [Para 23) [465-F)

6. lfthere is any obstruction by any authority including the shopkeepers,
house owners and customers and if any extension of shop is made or if there
is any unauthorized parking by the shopkeepers, which hampers or creates
- -1 any impediment for effectively implementing directions of the Court in F
hawking and non-hawking zones, the Committees shall immediately report
to the concerned authorities, and such authority shall immediately remove/
demolish such extended area of shops or unauthorized parking which hampers
or creates impediment for effectively implementing the directions of this Court.
[Para 27] [467-B-C) G
,-J'f 7. The suggestion of the Committee to relax the order of this Court
dated 9.12.2003 to accommodate some more hawkers in regard to certain spots
· in Z<>ne-1 and II as done in the case of Dadasaheb Phalke Road where distance
to be left from Dadar Station (East) was only 25 meters instead of 100/150
meters is rejected. (Para 28] (467-D] H
+
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A 8. The Committees examined the areas for Hawkers' Plazas, and have
made certain recommendations, which are accepted. B.M.C. now to undertake
immediate steps for making infrastructure available, as suggested by the
Committee!:. [Para 29] {468-AJ

9. Many Intervention Applications have been filed. The counsel for the
B respective applicants made an attempt to argue on such intervention
applications. None of the applicants satisfied and fulfilled the conditions
inasmuch as no undertaking has been filed before this Court, nor any list of
members has been filed in this Court, as directed. All such intervention A. ,
applications, which had not fulfilled the conditions/criteria, as set out by this
C Court are accordingly dismissed. [Para 30 and 31) [468-C-E]

10.1. The grievance in intervention application of the handicapped
hawkers is that despite their having licenses of 1m x 2 m. stalls, notices have
been issued by the Corporation to the disabled licensed stall holders to reduce
the size of stall to 1m x 1m. It is stated that the license for running stalls of
D lm x 2m had been issued to them because many of them have locomotor
disability. They have to take the assistance of wheelchairs, crutches, Jaipur
foot and other enabling aids of the like (which are non-foldable) and J
consequently, they need ample space within their booths to accommodate these
compensatory aid devices. The applicants have also annexed a specimen of
the license issued to them, which is lm x 2m. [Paras 33) [469-A-B]
E
10.2. By order dated 9.12.2003, in direction No. 1, Aarey/Sarita stalls
and sugar cane vendors who may require an area of more than 1m. x 1m.
were permitted to utilize the space of not more than 2m. x lm. [Piua 34)
[469-C)

F 10.3. Accordingly, the applicants in these intervention applications are
permitted to stalls of 1m. x 2m. as provided in their license. This permission,
however, is subject to verifications by the Committee that the allottees have
locomotor disability and they have to take the assistance of wheelchairs,
crutches, Jaipur foot and other enabling aids of the like (which are non-
foldable). [Para 34] [469-D)
G
11. National Policy on Urban Street Vendors has been framed as far
back as in 2004. Section 10 of the Policy deals with the role of the State r-
Governments. Section 10.1 provides that the State Governments should ensure
that institutional arrangements, legislative frameworks and other necessary
actions achieve conformity with the National Policy for Street Vendors. It was
H noted that the State Government was initiating a process for implementation
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWK\l'ERS UNION 1·. MUNICIPAL CORPN .. GREATER MUMBAI 453

of National Policy on Urban Street Vendors by framing regulations as A
envisaged in Section 10.1 of the National Policy. The regulations so framed
by the State would be in consonance with the aims and objects of the National.
Policy to render some sort of succor to the urban street vendors to eke out a
living through hawking. It is also clarified that State Government shall frame
regulations in order to solve the problem of hawkers independently without B
being influenced by any scheme framed by us or any direction issued by this
Court in the interregnum. It is further clarified that the schemes and
directions issued by the Court are purely temporary in nature and subject to
regulations framed by the State Government in terms of Section 10.1 of the
National Policy on Urban Street Vendors. In other words, the schemes and
directions issued by this Court shall be valid only till the regulations are C
framed and implemented. (Paras 25, 36, 40 and 4111469-E; 470-D; 472-B, CJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4156-4157 of
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.2000 and 2.8.2000 of the High D
Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 621/1999.

WITH

CA.Nos. 4158-4159, 4161-4162, 4163-4164,4160,4170-4171,4167-4169,4165-
4166,4175-4176,4179-4180,4172-4174,4178,4177 of 2002, Commt.Pet. (C) E
Nos.195-196 of2001 in C.A. No.4175-4176/2002, C.A.Nos. 9661, 9662, 9663-
9666, 9667 of2003, Conmt.Pet.(C) Nos.456-"-58 of2002 in C.A. Nos. 4167-4169/
2002, Conmt.Pet.(C) Nos. 153-154 of2005 in C.A. Nos. 4156-4157/2002, W.P(C)
No. 17 of2006, W.P.(C) No. 14 of2006, Contempt Petition(C)Nos.233-234/2005
in C.A. Nos.4156-4157/2002, Contempt Petition(C) Nos. 245-246/2005 in C.A.
'-~ Nos. 4156-4157/2002, Contempt Petition(C) Nos.4-5/2006 in C.A.NOs. 4156- F
4I5712002, Contempt Petition(C) No. 140/2006 in C.A. Nos.4156-4157/2000,
W.P.(C) No. 335/2004, W.P.(C) No. 337/2004.

G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Colin Gonsalves, Indira Jaisingh,
Jaideep Gupta, Vijay Hansaria, Shyam Dewan, T.S. Doabia, C.A. Sundaram, G
Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Chirsti Jain, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Sighania,
Piyush Jain, Jai Singh, Jyoti Mendiratta, Apama Bhat, Bharat Sangal, Chirag
M. Shroff, Mukesh Kumar, Mahima C. Shroff, Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Shakil
Ahmed Syed, Ashok Kumar Singh, Naresh Kumar Gaur, S.G. Shirodkar, Shivaji
M. Jadhav, P.I. Jose, Anupam Mishra, Sneha Kalita, Deepti, Anand Grover,
Naveen R. Nath, Anitha Shenoy, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Hetu Arora, Firdous H
+
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A Moosa, Naveen R. Nath, Venkateswara Rao Anumodu, K. Sunil, Shashi
Bhushan Kumar, Dinesh Singh Shah, Vijay Kumar, Sudhanhu Choudhari,
Naresh Kumar, Abhay Thora), Jatin Zaveri, Pallav Shisodia, S.H. Ujjaiiiwala,
A.V. Patil, D.N. Mishra, Madhavi Diwan, P.K. Bakshi, Prashant Bhushan, V.N.
Raghupathy, Himanshu Gupta, S.M. Jadhav, S.V. Deshpande, V.D. Khanna,
B Debasis Mishra, R.S. Dhull, Manohar Singh Bakshi, Jamsed Mistry, Asha
Gopalan Nair, Pradiphanur, Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Uday B. Dube, Kuldip
Singh, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Nandini Gore, Krishan Mahajan, V.K. Verma, Vijay
Panjwani, Maharukh Adeenwalla, Trideep Pais, Nikhil Nayyar, K. Rajeev, P.H.
Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Kush Ghaturvedi, Shakun Sharma, (for P.H. Parekh & Co.),
Sumita Hazarika, Amit Kumar, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Mukesh K. Giri,
C Senthil Jagadeesan, Sandeep Narain, Shri Narain (for S. Narain & Co.), Dr.
Kailash Chand, Pratibha Jain, Sudhir Nandrajog, Rohan Thawani, Pooja Dhar,
Prashant Kumar, Joseph Pookkatt, Mahesh Aggarwal, Rishi Agrawala, E.C.
Agrawala, Gaurav Goel, Malika Choudhary, Vikas Mehta, K.N. Rai, Yash Pal
Dhingra, Pramit Saxena, Anuradha Rustagi, Bhupender Yadav, Babita Yadav,
R.C. Kohli, M.M. Kashyap, Chandra Shekhar, Asif Ali Siddiqui, Sanjay Kumar
D Tyagi, S.K. Verma, N. Annapoorani, V. Ramasubramaniun, Shrish Kumar Mishra,
V.P. Singh and P. Parmeswaran, for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEMA, J. I. The Hawkers' problems in the city of Bombay was first
E dealt with by this Court in the case of Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation, [1985] 3 SCC 528. The argument that the hawkers
have a fundamental right to carry on their trade or business and that the
respondents are unlawfully interfering with that right by arbitrarily refusing
to grant or renew their licenses for hawking and that the writ petitions for a
p declaration that the provisions of Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3) and 497 of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 are void since they confer upon the
respondents an arbitrary and unguided power to refuse to grant or renew
licenses for hawking and to remove the goods without affording to the
hawkers an opportunity to be heard, was repelled by this Court. This Court
held that the tight to carry on trade or business conferred by Article 19(1 )(g)
G of the Constitution is subject to the provisions of clause (6) of Article 19
which provided that nothing in Sub-clause (g) of Article 19(1) would affect
the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposed, or prevented the State
from making any law imposing, in the interests of general public, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause. It
H was held that no one had any right to do his or her trade or business so as
-f

MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS UNION''· MUNICIPAL CORPN. GREATER MUMBAI [SEMA, l.] 455

~.J... to cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to the other members of the A
public. It was pointed out that public streets, by their very nomenclature and
definition, were meant for the use of the general public. It was further pointed
out that the public streets are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of private
trade or business. It was held that if hawkers were to be conceded the right
claimed by them they could hold the society to ransom by squatting on the
center of busy thoroughfares, thereby paralyzing all civic life. It was noticed B
that in some of the parts of the city the hawkers had made it impossible for
the pedestrians to walk on footpaths or even on the streets. This Court then
).. \. examined the scheme proposed by the Municipal Commissioner and laid
down certain modalities for hawking and non-hawking zones. After accepting
some restrictions/conditions proposed by the Municipal Commissioner, this c
Court suggested certain guidelines and directed the Municipal Commissioner
to frame a final scheme .
...
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Bombay Municipal Corporation
(for short 'BMC') constituted an Advisory Committee composed of officials
of the Corporation, representatives of the Residents' Associations, NGO's, D
elected representatives of the Traffic Police and representatives of the hawkers.
t In the interregnum, the Advisory Committee submitted a draft Scheme. Many
') suggestions were made but we are not concerned with the draft Scheme,
proposals or suggestions, in these proceedings.

3. Before this Court a strong reliance has also been placed on behalf E
of the petitioners on the judgment in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation, [1985] 3 SCC 545. It was submitted that the right to
hawk was also a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. This Court noticed that such an argument has been negative~ in the
-,~ case of Sadan Singh and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors., F
[1989] 4 SCC 155. This Court in Sadan Singh's case (supra), while dealing
with hawkers in the city of Delhi held that the hawking on roadsides fell
within the expression "occupation, trade or business" in Article 19 (I) (g) but
that it was subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the
Constitution.
G
4. After noticing the 1985 and 1989 judgments of this Court, as referred
-~ to above, this Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal
Corporation Greater Mumbai, [2004] I SCC 625 para IO at page SCC 630
·.held:
"10. The above authorities make it clear that the hawkers have a right H
+
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R.

A under Article l 9(1 )(g) of the Constitution oflndia. "rhis right however
is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). Thus hawking
may not be permitted where e.g. due to narrowness of road free flow
of traffic or movement of pedestrians is hindered or where for security
reasons an area is required to be kept free or .near hospitals, places
of worship etc. There is no fundamental right under Article 21 to carry
B on any hawking business. There is also no right to do hawking at any
particular place. The authorities also recognize the fact that if properly
regulated the small traders can considerably add to the convenience
and comfort of the general public, by making available ordinary articles
of everyday use for a comparatively lesser price. The scheme must
c keep in mind the above principles. So far as Mumbai is concerned the
scheme must comply with the conditions laid down in the Bombay
Hawkers Union's case. Those conditions have become final and there
is no changed circumstance which necessitates any alteration."

5. We are pointing out the aforesaid finding of this Court as many
D intervention applications have been filed, which we shall be dealing with at
an appropriate time, attempting to re-argue the entire controversy which has
been set at rest by this Court in Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, [2004] I SCC 625 (supra).

6. This Court, after noticing the draft Scheme prepared pursuant to the
E judgment of this Court in Bombay Hawkers' Union's case (supra), decided to
constitute a Committee. It said in paragraph 12 SCC page 634 as under:

'12. We have, during the course of arguments, tried to go through the
scheme street by street. However on a re-consideration it appears to
us that this Court is not really equipped to undergo this exercise. In
F our view it would be preferable that this Court approves the conditions
of the scheme and certain roads/streets on which hawking is to be
permitted. Then, as in Sodan Singh 's case, a committee must be
appointed and modalities laid down under which the committee is to
function. The committee can hear interested parties and consider their
G representations. The committee can decide whether any particular
road/street is to be declared as a non-hawking zone. We therefore
·~.
confine ourselves to laying down the basic features of the scheme,
appointing a committee and laying down the modalities for functioning
of the committee."

H 7. The other finding of this Court, which would be relevant for our
-f
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS UNION"· MUNICIPAL CORPN., GREATER MUMBAI [SEMA, J] 457

purpose is paragraph 13 page 634 sec, which reads: A
~J...
"13. At this stage it must be mentioned that we had by order dated
I st May 2003 permitted parties to make suggestions as to which
additional areas can become hawking zones. A number of suggestions
had been made. We are told that BMC is agreeable to include 51 more
roads as hawking zones. We have considered submissions of Mr. B
Divan on why these additional roads should not be added to the 137
already approved by the Bombay High Court. In our view 49 of these
additional roads meet all the criteria, set out hereafter, and can be
~ )>.. included in the hawking zones. Therefore to start with we approve the
187 + 49 roads as hawking zones. The roads we have excluded are
Pandey Road in A Ward and Deodhar Road in FIN ward as they
c
appear to be residential areas with no shopping line. We further clarify
that amongst these 49 roads there are some roads e.g. Mahatma
Gandhi Marg in A Ward which are already included in the hawking
zones but on which BMC now proposes to accommodate additional
hawkers. Whilst doing so BMC will ensure that there is no impediment D
..
or- hindrance to vehicular traffic or pedestrians. The approval of these
49 roads is subject to approval/NOC from the traffic police. It must
~ also be clarified that even though a road may be within a hawking
zone the restrictions, set out hereunder, regarding distances from
' railway stations, hospitals, educational institutions, places of worship
etc. on that road, if any, would continue to apply."
E

8. Ultimately, this Court took the view that the hawkers shall be pennitted
to do their business subject to restrictions/conditions, as set out in paragraph
14 page 635 sec as under:

"14. The restrictions/conditions on which the hawkers shall do the F
business are:

(I) an area of I mtr x I mtr on one side of the footpath wherever they
exist or on an extreme side of the carriage way, in such a manner that
the vehicular and pedestrian traffic is not obstructed and access to
shops and residences is not blocked. We further clarify that even G
where hawking is permitted, it can only be on one side of the footpath
: '
or road and under no circumstances on both sides of the footpaths
or roads. We howeyer clarify that Aarey/Sarita stalls and sugar cane
vendors would require and may be pennitted an area of more than 1
Mt. by I Mt. but not more than 2 Mt. by 1 Mt; H
+
\

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A (2) Hawkers must not put up stalls or place any tables, stand or such
other thing or erect any type of structure. They should also not use
handcarts. However they may protect their goods from the sun, rain
or wind. Obviously this condition would not apply to Aarey/sarita
stalls;

B (3) There should be no hawking within JOO meters from any place of
worship, holy shrine, educational institutions and hospitals or within
150 meters from any municipal or other markets or from any railway
station. There should be no hawking on foot-bridges and over-bridges.
Further certain areas may be required to be kept free of hawkers for
security reasons. However outside places of worship hawkers can be
c permitted to sell items required by the devotees for offering to the
deity or for placing in the place of worship e.g. flowers, sandalwood,
candies, agarbattis, coconuts etc.;

(4) The hawkers must not create any noise or play any instrument or
music for attracting the public or the customers;
D
(5) They can only sell cooked foods, cut fruits juices and the like. We
are unable to accept submission that cooking should be permitted. We •
direct that no cooking of any nature whatsoever shall be permitted.
Even where cooked food or cut fruits or the like are sold, the food
must not be adulterated or unhygienic . .All municipal licensing
E
regulations and the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act must be complied with;

(6) Hawking must be only between 7.00 am and 10.00 pm;

(7) Hawking will be on the basis of payment of a prescribed fee to be
F fixed by BMC. However the payment of prescribed fee shall not be
deemed to authorize the hawker to do his business beyond prescribed
hours and would not confer on the hawker the right to do business
at any particular place;

(8) The hawkers must extend full cooperation to the municipal
G conservancy staff for cleaning the streets and footpaths and also to
the other municipal staff for carrying on any municipal work. They '.
must also cooperate with the other government and public agencies
such as BEST unde1uking, Bombay Telephones, BSES Ltd. etc. if they.
require to lay any cable or any development work.;
H
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS UNION 1·. MUNICIPAL CORPN. GREATER MUMBAI [SEMA, J.] 459

(9) No hawking would be permitted on any street which is less than A
- A 8 meters in width. Further the hawkers also have to comply with
Development Control Rules thus there can be no hawking in areas
which are exclusively residential and where trading and commercial
activity is prohibited. Thus hawking cannot be permitted on roads and
pavements which do not have a shopping line.;
B
(10) BMC shall grant licences which will have photos of the hawkers
on them. The licence must be displayed, at all times, by the hawkers
< on their person by clipping it on to their shirt or coat;
~- ')...
... (11) Not more than one member of a family must be given a licence
to hawk. For this purpose BMC will have to computerize its records; c
;
(12) Vending of costly items e.g. electrical appliances, video and audio
tapes and cassettes, cameras, phones etc are to be prohibited. In the
event of any hawker found to be selling such items his licence must
be cancelled forthwith.
D
(13) In areas other than the Non-Hawking Zones, licences must be
granted to the hawkers to do their business on payment of the
., "" prescribed fee. The licences must be for a period of I year. That will
be without prejudice to the right of the Committee to extend the limits
of the Non-Hawking Zones in the interests of public health, sanitation,
safety, public convenience and the like. Hawking licences should not E
be refused in the Hawking Zones except for good reasons. The
discretion not to grant a hawking licence in the Hawking Zone should
be exercised reasonably and in public interest.

(14) In future; before making any alteration in the scheme, the
- .. Commissioner should place the matter before the Committee who shall F
take a decision after considering views of all concerned including the
hawkers, the Commissioner of Police and members of the public or an
association representing the public.

(15) It is expected that citizens and shopkeepers shall participate in
keeping non hawking zones/areas free from hawkers. They shall do so G
., by bringing to the notice of the concerned ward officer the presence
_...-., of a hawker in a non hawking zone/area. lhe .concerned ward officer
shall take immediate steps to remove such a hawker. In case the ward
officer takes no action a written complaint may be filed by the citizen/
~ shopkeeper to the Committee. The Committee shall look into the H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A complaint and if found correct the Committee will with the help of
police remove the hawker. The officer in charge of the concerned
police station is directed to give prompt and immediate assistance to
the Committee. In the event of the Committee finding the complaint
to be correct it shall so record. On the Committee so recording an
adverse remark re failure to perform his duty will be entered in the
B confidential record of the concerned ward officer. If more than three
such entries are found in the record of an officer it would be a ground
for withholding promotion. If more than 6 such entries are found in
the records of an officer it shall be a ground for termination uf service.
For the work of attending to such c0mplaints BMC shall pay to the
c Chairman a fixed honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- p.m.

(16) The scheme framed by us will have a binding effect on all
concerned. Thus apart from those to whom licenses will now be
issued, no other person/body will have any right to squat or carry on
any hawking or other business on the roads/streets. We direct the
D BMC shall bring this Judgment to the notice of all Courts in which
matters are now pending. We are quite sure that the concerned Courts
shall then suitably vacate/modify its injunction/stay order."

9. Finally, a Committee had been constituted by this Court with certain
directions in paragraph 16 page 638 sec as under:
E
"16. We appoint a Committee consisting of a retired Judge of the
Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay (to be nominated by the Chief
Justice of Bombay High Court), who shall be the Chairman of the
Committee, a senior officer of BMC (who shall be nominated by the
Municipal Commissioner) and a senior police officer from the traffic
F department (who shall be nominated by the Police Commissioner). For
the present the Officers will be deputed full time to work on the
,,.-
Committee. BMC shall forthwith make available to the Chairman and
the Committee all facilities like office space, secretarial staff etc. BMC
shall also make available to the Chairman a chauffeur driven car which
is to be used for this work only. Any person or organization who
G
feels, that roads/streets apart from those designated as non hawking
zones are suitable for hawking, may apply to this Committee, for
having that road/street designated as a hawking zone. Similarly any
person or organization who feels that any road/street designated as
hawking zone should be a non hawking zone may apply to the
H Committee for having that road/street designated as a non hawking
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS UNION 1•. MUNICIPAL CORPN .. GREATER MUMBAI [SEMA. J.] 461

- )., zone. The person or organization so applying must deposit along with A
the application a sum of Rs. 1500/- per road/street in respect of which
they want a decision. BMC shall add to that a sum of Rs. 1500/- per
road/street. The sum of Rs. 3000 per road/street shall be handed over
to the Chairman of the Committee as his honorarium. The Committee
shall then cause a notice to be placed in the concerned ward office
and in prominent places on that road/street inviting objections/
B
suggestions in respect of that proposal. Undoubtedly the Committee
shall visit the road/street and also hear all concerned parties including
.• ~ residents associations, shop owners in that road/street etc. The
Committee shall then decide whether or not such road/street should
be a hawking zone or not. The Committee will also decide how many c
hawkers can be accommodated on that road/street if it is to be a
hawking zone. We clarify that merely because in the scheme, as
sanctioned, an area has been shown as a hawking zone or a non
hawking zone, will not preclude the Committee from considering whether
hawking can be permitted on that road/street. We have no doubt that
the Committee shall ensure that the above mentioned criteria are D
fulfilled before a road/street is declared as a hawking zone and that
-t
., if all the criteria are met then that road/street is not kept out of a
hawking zone. In the event of any difference between the Committee
'
members, the decision of the Chairman of the Committee shall prevail.
The decision of the Committee shall be final and binding on all." E
10. By another order dated 30.7.2004, this Court, amongst others,
constituted two more Committees. This Court then directed that the first
Committee, which had been established by order dated 9.12.2003 shall deal
with Zones I & 2 and the two Committees, constituted on that· date, shall deal
---~
with Zones 3 &4 and 5 & 6 respectively. It was further clarified that all F
unauthorized hawkers and hawkers other than the licensed hawkers may have
to be, in a phased manner, removed from non-hawking Zones.

11. This Court further passed the following order regarding intervention
applications:
G
"Before this Court a number of Associations are appearing and are
>"' seeking to intervene. Each such Association shall file in this Court,
and also give to the Bombay Municipal Corporation, a list of all its
members with the address of each member. The Association and each
such member shall file an undertaking before this Court that they will
H
/
'

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A cooperate with the Bombay Municipal Corporation in the
implementation of the Scheme. Any Association or member who does
not file list/ undertaking not to be considered for allotment of space."

LICENSED HAWKERS

B 12. Regarding licensed hawkers, after hearing the parties at length, we
left it to be considered only after the position regarding total number of
available sites becomes available. The question whether the licensed hawkers,
who had been operating for a long period of time must also stand in line with
others, was also left open.

C HANDICAPPED HAWKERS

13. With regard to handicapped hawkers, which was not covered by our
order dated 9.12.2003, was clarified in our order dated 30.7.2004 as under:

"We, however, modify our order dated 9th December, 2003 by permitting
D handicapped persons who have been granted license for running the
PCOs/Aarey/Sarita stalls to continue to run those stalls even in non-
hawking Zones. No further or new licenses to be granted to any other +
person even a handicapped person in non-hawking zones. We,
however, clarify that a license to run the PCO stalls would mean
running a PCO stall. No other activity can be carried out from the
E PCO stall. Similarly, even in respect of other stalls, only the activity
permitted by the license can be carried on."

14. Pursuant to our order aforesaid, the three Committees, constituted
by us, have submitted their reports, after hearing the parties and receiving
objections, if any, as directed. The Committees suggested some deletions/
F
additions, which are to be considered by this Court. That is how the matter ~--
is placed before us once again for issuing further appropriate directions.

15. The principal contention of all the counsel is that this Court identified
187 roads plus 49 roads as hawking Zones. However, the Committees had
G upset the approval of this Court, which is not permissible.

16. To answer this question, we need to harmonize our directions in ~---
paragraphs 13 and 16 of our judgment of 9.12.2003. In paragraph 13 of our
judgment, we have approved 187 plus 49 roads as hawking Zones. We,
however, clarified that so far as 49 roads are concerned, the same are subject
H to the approval/NOC from the Traffic Police. We also clarified that even
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS UNION>'. MUMCIPAL CORPN .. GREATER MUMBAI [SEMA_ J] 463

though a road may be within a hawking Zone the restrictions regarding A
distances from railway stations, hospitals, educational institutions, places of
worship etc. on that road, if any, would continue to apply. We further clarified·
in paragraph 16 of our order that merely because in the scheme, as sanctioned,
an area has been shown as a hawking zone or a non hawking zone, will not
preclude the Committee from considering whether hawking can be permitted B
on that road/street.

I 7. Reading paragraphs 13 and 16 of our order conjointly, would clearly
show that although we have in principle approved 187 roads as hawking
Zones, we have permitted the Committees to further consider whether hawking
can be permitted on such road/street or not. In our view, therefore, the C
contention of the petitioners that the Committees had reduced the roads,
which had been declared the hawking Zones by this Court, without any
authority, must be rejected. In our view, the Committees had exercised their
powers in consonance with the directions issued by this Court.

18. The other contention that due to reduction/deletion of some roads, D
approved as hawking Zones by this Court, the hawkers have been deprived
of their right to hawk on the streets declared as hawking Zones has also no
substance. This contention also deserves to be rejected outright.
i
19. The statements showing number of Hawking Zone Roads and
available pitches thereat recommended by all the Three Members' Committees E
are as follows:

"Annexure - VIII

Statement showing Number of Hawking Zone Roads and available
pitches thereat recommended by all the Three Members Committees F
City Eastern Subs Western Subs
Committee Committee Committee
No.of No.of No. of No. of No. of No. of
Rds. pitches Rds. pitches Rds. pitches

G
Hawking Zones out of 57 4088 59 7658 80 7255
196 Roads approved
By Hon'ble Supreme
Court
Less Roads deleted by 06 205 12 454 80 7255
Committee
H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 2 S.C.R.

A
Rds. Remained out of 196 61 3885 47 '
7204 - -
Roads
Plus After considering 44 2275 50 8288 56 2670
suggestion & objections
newly added roads &
pitches
B Plus Hawking Plaza - - - - 01 226
(K/W)

Actual available Roads 95 6138 97 15492 56 2896
for Hawking zones &
number of pitches
available
c Summary Statement showing total number of available Hawking Zone
Roads & Pitches as recommended by all the Three Members
Committees.

SI.No. Committee Roads Pitches Hawking Pitches Total
D Plaza
A B c D E F G(D+F)
l City 95 6138 - - 6138
2 Eastern CJ7 15492 - - 15492
3 Western 56 2670 l 226 2896
248 24300 1 226 24526
E
20. Out of248 roads, recommended as hawking Zones by the Committees,
27 roads fall within 100/150 mtrs. from the places of worship and educational
institutes. The suggestion of the Committees to modify and relax direction
No. 3 of this Court is rejected. Such suggestion cannot be accepted because
F this has been the consistent view even in 1985 case, which has been adopted
by this Court. Therefore, the 27 roads, identified and suggested by the
Committees and included in total roads of248, have to be deducted. Therefore,
the total roads as hawking Zones shall remain only at 221. Out of 24,300
pitches, 2429 pitches have to be excluded. Then it comes to 21871plus1853
plus 226 pitches. The total final figure comes to 23,950 pitches.
G
21. The break-up figures shown in the recommendations of the
Committees show that there are in total 15,159 existing licensed hawkers in
the city of Bombay. Out of these 5555 licensed hawkers are pertaining to 1~ ~
PCOs/ Handicapped Persons' Stalls, Cobbler Pitehes, Cobbler Stalls and Aarey
Sarita, which had been permitted by this Court in our order dated 9.12.2003
H and 30.7.2004. From the remaining 9604 licensed hawkers, 2083 are in hawking
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN , GREATER MUMBAI [SEMA, J ] 465

Zones and 7521 are in non-hawking Zones. A
STATUS OF LICENSED HAWKERS

22. The question whether licensed hawkers already operating in hawking
Zones should be allowed to continue irrespective of draw of lots had been
kept open by this Court to be decided after the submission of the Committees' B
Report. The Committees recommended that it would not be advisable for the
licensed hawkers who are hawking for the last so many years to stand in a
" \.. queue for the draw of lots alongwith unlicensed hawkers. Mr. G .E. Vahanvati,
learned Solicitor General appearing for B.M.C. has no objection ifthe licensed
hawkers, already operating in hawking Zones, should be allowed to continue C
irrespective of draw of lots. We accept the suggestion of the Committees.
Accordingly, we issue the following directions:

(A) 5555 licensed hawkers pertaining to PCOs/ Handicapped Persons'
Stalls, Cobbler Pitches, Cobbler Stalls and Aarey Sarita are allowed
to continue their business irrespective of draw of lots till the D
regulations are framed by the Government of Maharashtra.

(B) 2083 licensed hawkers hawking in hawking Zones shall be allowed
1 to continue the hawking irrespective of draw of lots till the
regulations are framed by the Government of Maharashtra.
(C) 752 I licensed hawkers, who are in the non-hawking Zones, must E
be shifted to hawking Zones and allowed to continue hawking
till the regulations are framed by the Government of Maharashtra.

23. We have noticed that total pitches now available in the hawking
Zones are (23950 minus 15159) = 8791. For these 8791, there shall be draw
- ~ of lots. F
24. Each Committee shall print a format for draw of lots Amongst
others, the application form for draw of lots shall contain the following
information:

(i) Every applicant shall affix his/her latest passport size photo on G
the application form;

(ii) Fathers' name/ Name of the spouse, if married and address;

(Iii) Ward No., whether his/her name appears in the Electoral Roll as
a Voter, SI. No. in the Voter's List etc. ;
H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A (iv) An undertaking that he/she has not applied in any other ward/
zone other than the ward/zone applied;
(v) Must undertake that the information furnished, if found false,
fabricated or if any fraud is played, he/she will be disqualified,
even subsequent to the draw of lots. In other words, the
B application shall be treated as null and void;
(vi) Each Zone shall constitute a Screening Committee and the
Screening Committee, after properly scrutinizing each and every
applicant, shall fix the date for draw of lots; ~, "

(vii) The Screening Committees are entitled to devise their own
c modalities in order to ensure that no applicant/family secures
more than one pitch.

25. The Committee (Zone I & II) in the Report dated 20.1.2005 pointed
out certain difficulties in effectively implementing the hawking and non-
hawking Scheme, as framed by this Court. The Committee pointed out the
D probiems of unauthorized parking of vehicles/ lorries/ tempos/ two wheelers
etc. by the shopkeepers and customers. In paragraph 37(vii), the Committee
pointed out as under:

"37(vii) The problem of unauthorized parking of vehicles/ lorries/
tempos/ two wheelers etc. is the case of much greater nuisance for
E vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic as compared with the problem
of unauthorized hawking. At the time of the visit of the Committee
in C-Ward, it was found that from Princess street junction upto Abdul
Rehman Street, major portion of the road was blocked by unauthorized
parking. On enquiry I was told that the unauthorized parking is on
F account of parking of vehicles of shopkeepers of the said road or their
customers or visitors. Not only that, but the shopkeepers have
allowed unauthorized parking for themselves and their customers near
their shops and they have also extended the area of their shops in
front of the shops and in some cases by keeping temporary stalls or
stools for exhibiting their goods. Such was the position in practically
G all Wards."

26. The same was reiterated again by the Report of the Committee dated ~~
29.3.2005 as under:

"In order to effectively implement hawking/non-hawking zone scheme
H
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKWERS UNION>: MUNICIPAL CORPN., GREATER MUMBAI [SEMA. J] 467

it is also desirable that necessary direction may also be given regarding A
unauthorized parking and unauthorized extension of their shops by
several shopkeepers as stated in detail in para 37(vii) on page 28 of
my earlier report."

27. Our orders dated 9. 12.2003 and 30.7.2004 make it abundantly clear
that all concerned shall abide our directions. This would mean including B
shopkeepers, house owners and vehicle owners. We make it clear that if there
is any obstruction by any authority including the shopkeepers, house owners
and customers and if any extension of shop is made or if there is any
unauthorized parking by the shopkeepers, which hampers or creates any
impediment for effectively implementing our directions in hawking and non- C
hawking zones, the Committees shall immediately report to the concerned
authorities, and such authority shall immediately remove/demolish such
extended area of shops or unauthorized parking which hampers or creates
impediment for effectively implementing the directions of this Court.

28. The suggestion of the Committee to relax the order of this Court D
dated 9.12.2003 to accommodate some more hawkers in regard to certain
spots in Zone- I and II as done in the case of Dadasaheb Phalke Road where
distance to be left from Dadar Station (East) was only 25 meters instead of
' 1001150 meters is rej~cted.

HAWKERS' PLAZA E
In our order dated 9.12.2003, we noticed as under:

"It will be open for BMC to set up hawking plazas. However, when
BMC sets up a hawking plaza the allotment of lm x Im pitches in
those hawking plazas must be made on the above terms and F
conditions ......... ,"

Pursuant to our order, the Committees examined the following areas for
Hawkers' Plazas:

"l. Plot No. T/4 on .Lokmanya Tilak Road, Borivali (W).
G
2. Hawkers Plaza at Navrang Garden now known as Ganpatrao Ambre
Maharaj Udyan in K/West on J.P. Road, Andheri(W).

3. Sainath Road, Malad(W) near subway.

H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A 4. Andheri Palika Bazaar Hawkers' Plaz.a (Below Gokhale Flyover Bridge)
at Andheri(W)."

29. After examining the areas, the Committees have made certain
recommendations, which are accepted. B.M.C. now to undertake immediate
steps for making infrastructure available, as suggested by the Committees.
B
JNTERVEN770N APPLICATIONS

30. Many Intervention Applications have been filed. The counsel for
the respective applicants made an attempt to argue on such intervention !f . ;
applications. This Court on 30.7.2004 clarified that each such association
C shall file in this Court, and also furnish to the Bombay Municipal Corporation,
a list of all its members with the address of each member. The Associations
and each such member were required to file an undertaking before this Court
to the effect that they will cooperate with the Bombay Municipal Corporation
in the implementation of the Scheme. This Court further said that any
D Association or member who does not file list/ undertaking not to be considered
. for allotment of space.

31. None of the applicants satisfied and fulfilled the conditions inasmuch -t
as no such undertaking has been filed before this Court, nor any list of '·
members has been filed in this Court, as directed. All such intervention
E applications, which had not fulfilled the conditions/criteria, as set out by this
Court are accordingly dismissed.

HANDICAPPED HAWKERS

I.A.Nos.28,29/04,78,JOO-JOI,!58,159/05and 200, 201106
F
32. These intervention applications have been filed by the handicapped
hawkers. They have filed an undertaking before this Court. This Court on
30.7.2004 passed the following order:

"We, however, modify our order dated 9th December, 2003 by permitting
handicapped persons who have been granted license for running the
G
PCOs/ Aarey/Sarita stalls to continue to run those stalls even in non-
hawking Zones. No further or new licenses to be granted to any other
person even a handicapped person in non-hawking zones. We,
however, clarify that a license to run the PCO stalls would mean
running a PCO stall. No other activity can be carried out from the
H PCO stall. Similarly, even in respect of other stalls, only the activity
MAHARASHTRA EKrA HAWKWERS UNION•·. MUNICIPAL CORPN. GREATER MUMBAI (SEMA. J.] 469

permitted by the license can be carried on." A
33. The grievance of the applicants is that despite their having licenses
of Im x 2 m. stalls, notices have been issued by the Corporation to the
disabled licensed stall holders to reduce the size of stall to Im x 1m. It is
stated that the license for running stalls of Im x 2m had been issued to them
because many of them have locomotor disability. They have to take the B
assistance ofwhP.elchairs, crutches, Jaipur foot and other enabling aids of the
like (which are non-foldable) and consequently, they need ample space within
their booths to accommodate these compensatory aid devices. The applicants
have also annexed a specimen of the license issued to them, which is Im x
2m.
c
34. By our order dated 9.12.2003, in direction No. 1, we have allowed
Aarey/Sarita stalls and sugar cane vendors who may require an area of more
than Im. x Im. and accordingly permitted them to utilize the space of not more
than 2m. x Im. Accordingly, the applicants in these intervention applications
are permitted to stalls of 1m. x 2m. as provided in their license. This permission, D
however, is subject to verifications by the Committee that the allottees have
locomotor disability and they have to take the assistance of wheelchairs,
crutches, Jaipur foot and other enabling aids of the like (which are non-
foldable).

NATIONAL POLICY ON URBAN STREET VENDORS E
35. National Policy on Urban Street Vendors has been framed as far back
as in 2004. Its Introduction reads:

"Introduction
F
Street vending as a profession has been in existence in India since
time immemorial. However, their number has increased manifold in the
recent years. According to one study Mumbai has the largest number
of street vendors numbering around 250,000, while Delhi has around
200,000. Calcutta has more than 150,000 street vendors and Ahmedabad
has around 100,000. Women constitute a large number of street G
vendors in almost every city. Some studies estimate that street vendors
constitute approximately 2% of the population of a metropolis. The
total number of street vendo~s in the country is estimated at around
I crore. Urban vending is not only a source of employment but
provide 'affordable' services to the majority of urban population. The H
(
\

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A role played by the hawkers in the economy as also in the society
needs to be given due credit but they are considered as unlawful
entities and are subjected to continuous harassment by Police and
civic authorities. This is reported to be continuing even after the
ruling of the Supreme Court that "if properly regulated according to
the exigency of the circumstances, the small traders on the side walks
B can considerably add to the comfort and convenience of the general
public, by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for a
comparatively lesser price. An ordinary person, not very affluent,
while hurrying towards his home after a day's work can pick up these
atticles without going out of his way to find a regular market. The
c right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19(l)(g) of the
Constitution, on street pavements, if properly regulated cannot be
denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing
or re-passing and no other use." ..
36. Section 10 of the Policy deals with the role of the State Governments.
D Section l 0.1 provides that the State Governments should ensure that
institutional arrangements, legislative frameworks and other necessary actions
achieve conformity with the National Policy for Street Vendors. At the time
of hearing of these petitions, it had been brought to our notice by Mr.
\
Raghupati, learned counsel for the State that a Committee has been constituted
E by the State of Maharashtra to go into the whole gamut of the issues and
necessary regulations will be framed by the State. We insisted that the
Government should file an affidavit explaining their position and the time
framework within which regulations can be framed. Pursuant to our direction,
a counteraffidavit of Dr. Jairaj Phatak, Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Government of Maharashtra has been filed. It is stated that to
F implement the national policy on urban street vendors in the State the matter
was thoroughly discussed in the meeting held on 29.11.2005. It is stated that -r--
to implement the National Policy on urban street vendors a Committee has
been constituted with the following persons:
1. Principal Secretary II, Chairman
G Urban Development Department,
Mantralya, Mumbai.
....
~
2. , Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Member
Mantralya, Mumbai.

H
37. It is also stated that the first meeting of the Committee was held on E
5th September, 2006 and various issues about the street hawkers were
discussed. A decision was also taken in the said meeting to inform all the
Municipal Corporations/ Councils about the said Committee and a copy of the
National Policy on Urban Street Vendors was also circulated. It is stated that
the next meeting has been fixed towards .the middle of February, 2007.
F
. 38. Finally, it is stated in the affidavit that the issue requires survey and
study of the various urban areas falling within the jurisdiction of various
Municipal Corporations I Councils and, therefore, the State Government
requires some time to frame the regulations for implementing the National
Policy on Urban Street Vendors. It is stated that the State Government would G
be able to decide on the feasibility of the implementation by .May, 2007.

39. After noticing the contents of the statements in the counter, we are
happy to note that the State Government is initiating a process for
implementation of National Policy on Urban Street Vendors by framing
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R.

A regulations as envisaged in Section I0. I of the National Policy. We hope and ,k -·
trust that the State Government will pursue the matter with right earnest and
bring it to logical conclusion within the time stipulated.

40. We clarify that the regulations so framed by the State would be in
consonance with the aims and objects of the National Policy to render some
B sort of succour to the urban street vendors to eke out a living through
hawking.

4 L We also clarify that State Government shall frame regulations in order .,.. .
to solve the problem of hawkers independently without being influenced by
any scheme framed by us or any direction issued by th is Court in the
C interregnum. We further clarify that the schemes and directions issued by this
Court are purely temporary in nature and subject to regulations framed by the
State Government in terms of Section 10. I of the National Policy on Urban
Street Vendors. In other words, the schemes and directions issued by this
Court shall be valid only till the regulations· are framed and implemented.
D
42. All the Writ petitions, Contempt petitions except Contempt petition
No. 140 of2006 are accordingly dismissed. Issue notice in Contempt Petition
No. 140 of2006, returnable within six weeks.

43. We would like to reiterate that no other Court shall interpret the order
E of this Court or pass any order touching upon the subject matter dealt with
by this Court concerning the issues in hand. Any writ petition pending in
any High Court on the same subject shall remain stayed. If any clarifications/
modifi~ations are required, the same must be obtained from this Court.

44. List the matter for further orders after six months.
vs. Notice isssued in Contempt Petition No. 140 of 2006
other Contempt Petitions and Writ Petions dismissed
Matters to be listed after six months.