# MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2013] 9 S.C.R. 742
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-09-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 4156-4157 of 2002
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, V. Gopala Gowda
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maharashtra-ekta-hawkers-union-and-another-v-municipal-corporation-greater-29321
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

HAWKER MATTERS:
'Hawker' - Connotation of - Explained.
Street vendors - Held: -- Till an appropriate legislation is
enacted by Parliament or any other competent legislature,
and is brought into force, the salient provisions of National
Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009, as enumerated in the
Order, should be implemented throughout the country - Further
E directions issued for facilitating implementation of the 2009
Policy - As regards the order of Supreme Court staying the
hearing of writ petitions pending before High Courts and
directing to obtain any clarification/modification from the
Court, the parties, whose applications have remained pending
F before Supreme Court, shall be free to institute appropriate
proceedings including petition under Art. 226 of the
Constitution, in the jurisdictional High Court.
Bombay Hawkers' Union vs. Bombay Municipal
Corporation 1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 849 = (1985) 3 SCC 528,
G Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1989 (3)
SCR 1038 = (1989) 4 SCC 155, Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers
Union vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai 2003 (6)
Suppl. SCR 581 = (2004) 1 SCC 625, Maharashtra Ekta
Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai
2007 (2) SCR 448 = (2009) 17 SCC 151, Maharashtra Ekta
H
742
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL
7 43
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI
Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai
A
(2009) 17 SCC 231; Saghir Ahmad vs. State of U.P. 1955
SCR 707 = AIR 1954 SC 728 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 849
referred to
Para 5
B
1989 (3) SCR 1038
referred to
Para 5
2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 581
referred to
Para 5
2007 (2) SCR 448
referred to
Para 5
(2009) 11 sec 231
referred to
Para 5
1955 SCR 707
referred to
Para 6
c
CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 41564157 of ·2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2000 and
02.08.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Writ
D
Petition No. 621 of 1999.
WITH
C. A. Nos. 4161-4162 of 2002.
C. A. Nos. 4175-4176 of 2002.
I.A. No. 266-285, 288-289, 294-299, 304-309, 3112-321
& 324-335.
h
C. A. Nos. 4156-4157 of 2002.
l.A.Nos.7-8 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4161-4162 of 2002.
E
F
I.A. Nos. 16-17 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4175-4176 of 2002.
G.E. Vahanvati, AG, Brijender Chahar, Shyam Divan,
G
Pallav Shishodia, Anand Grover, Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet
Jain, Ram Singh, Anjani Aiyagari, T.A. Khan, Harish Kaushik,
Madhvi Divan, D. Bharat Kumar, J.J. Xavier, Bhargava V.
Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra, Mihir Samson, Suraj Sanad,
Prashant Bhushan, Ramesh K. Mishra, Sunita Sharma, Satya
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 9 S.C.R.
A Siddiqui, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Prity Kunwar, Ajay Marwah for the
appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. A street vendor I hawker is a person
B who offers goods for sale to the public at large without having
a permanent structure I place for his activities. Some street
vendors I hawkers are stationary in the sense that they occupy
space on the pavements or other public I private places while
others are mobile in the sense that they move from place to
C place carrying their wares on push carts or in baskets on their
heads.
2. In last four decades, there has been manifold in.crease
in the number of street vendors I hawkers in all major cities in
the country. One of the many factors responsible for this
D phenomena is unabated growth of population without
corresponding increase in employment opportunities. The other
factor is the migration of rural population to the urban areas. A
large section of the rural population has been forced to leave
their habitat because of massive acquisition of land and
E substantial reduction in the number of cottage industries, which
offered source of livelihood to many people in the rural areas
and even those living i.n the peripheries of the urban areas. In
recent past, many lakh youngsters have moved from the rural
areas to the cities with the hope of getting permanent source
F of livelihood but a substantial

## Text

_Characters 0–39,923 of 59,576. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39923 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 742
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION AND
ANOTHER
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI AND
OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4156-4157 of 2002 etc.)
AND
l.A.Nos.266-285, 288-289, 294-299, 304-309, 312-321 &
324-335
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013.
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA JJ.]
HAWKER MATTERS:
'Hawker' - Connotation of - Explained.
Street vendors - Held: -- Till an appropriate legislation is
enacted by Parliament or any other competent legislature,
and is brought into force, the salient provisions of National
Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009, as enumerated in the
Order, should be implemented throughout the country - Further
E directions issued for facilitating implementation of the 2009
Policy - As regards the order of Supreme Court staying the
hearing of writ petitions pending before High Courts and
directing to obtain any clarification/modification from the
Court, the parties, whose applications have remained pending
F before Supreme Court, shall be free to institute appropriate
proceedings including petition under Art. 226 of the
Constitution, in the jurisdictional High Court.
Bombay Hawkers' Union vs. Bombay Municipal
Corporation 1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 849 = (1985) 3 SCC 528,
G Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1989 (3)
SCR 1038 = (1989) 4 SCC 155, Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers
Union vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai 2003 (6)
Suppl. SCR 581 = (2004) 1 SCC 625, Maharashtra Ekta
Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai
2007 (2) SCR 448 = (2009) 17 SCC 151, Maharashtra Ekta
H
742
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL
7 43
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI
Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai
A
(2009) 17 SCC 231; Saghir Ahmad vs. State of U.P. 1955
SCR 707 = AIR 1954 SC 728 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 849
referred to
Para 5
B
1989 (3) SCR 1038
referred to
Para 5
2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 581
referred to
Para 5
2007 (2) SCR 448
referred to
Para 5
(2009) 11 sec 231
referred to
Para 5
1955 SCR 707
referred to
Para 6
c
CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 41564157 of ·2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2000 and
02.08.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Writ
D
Petition No. 621 of 1999.
WITH
C. A. Nos. 4161-4162 of 2002.
C. A. Nos. 4175-4176 of 2002.
I.A. No. 266-285, 288-289, 294-299, 304-309, 3112-321
& 324-335.
h
C. A. Nos. 4156-4157 of 2002.
l.A.Nos.7-8 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4161-4162 of 2002.
E
F
I.A. Nos. 16-17 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4175-4176 of 2002.
G.E. Vahanvati, AG, Brijender Chahar, Shyam Divan,
G
Pallav Shishodia, Anand Grover, Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet
Jain, Ram Singh, Anjani Aiyagari, T.A. Khan, Harish Kaushik,
Madhvi Divan, D. Bharat Kumar, J.J. Xavier, Bhargava V.
Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra, Mihir Samson, Suraj Sanad,
Prashant Bhushan, Ramesh K. Mishra, Sunita Sharma, Satya
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 9 S.C.R.
A Siddiqui, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Prity Kunwar, Ajay Marwah for the
appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. A street vendor I hawker is a person
B who offers goods for sale to the public at large without having
a permanent structure I place for his activities. Some street
vendors I hawkers are stationary in the sense that they occupy
space on the pavements or other public I private places while
others are mobile in the sense that they move from place to
C place carrying their wares on push carts or in baskets on their
heads.
2. In last four decades, there has been manifold in.crease
in the number of street vendors I hawkers in all major cities in
the country. One of the many factors responsible for this
D phenomena is unabated growth of population without
corresponding increase in employment opportunities. The other
factor is the migration of rural population to the urban areas. A
large section of the rural population has been forced to leave
their habitat because of massive acquisition of land and
E substantial reduction in the number of cottage industries, which
offered source of livelihood to many people in the rural areas
and even those living i.n the peripheries of the urban areas. In
recent past, many lakh youngsters have moved from the rural
areas to the cities with the hope of getting permanent source
F of livelihood but a substantial number of them have become
street vendors I hawkers because their expectations have been
belied. One reason which has contributed to this scenario is
that unlike other sections of the urban population, they neither
have the capacity and strength to demand that the Government
G should create jobs for them nor do they engage in begging,
stealing or extortion. They try to live with dignity and self-respect
by doing the work as street vendors I hawkers.
3. The importance of street vendors and hawkers can be
measured from the fact that millions of urban poor across the
H country procure their basic necessities mainly from street
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 745
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
vendors I hawkers because the goods, viz., cloths, hosiery
A
items, plastic wares, household items, food items, etc., sold on
pavements or through push carts, etc., are cheap. The lower
income groups also spend a large proportion of their income
in purchasing goods from street vendors I hawkers.
4. Unfortunately, the street vendors I hawkers have
8
received raw treatment from the State apparatus before and
even after the independence. They are a harassed lot and are
constantly victimized by the officials of the local authorities, the
police, etc., who regularly target them for extra income and treat
them with extreme contempt. The goods and belongings of the
C
street vendors I hawkers are thrown to the ground and destroyed
at regular intervals if they are not able to meet the demands of
the officials. Perhaps these minions in the administration have
not understood meaning of the term "dignity" enshrined in the
preamble of the Constitution.
D
F
5. The constant threat faced by the street vendors I
hawkers of losing their source of livelihood has forced them to
seek intervention of the Courts across the country from time to
time. In last 28 years, this Court has struggled to find a workable
E
solution of the problems of street vendors I hawkers on the one
hand and other sections of society including residents of the
localities I places where street vendors I hawkers operate and
delivered several judgments including Bombay Hawkers'
Union vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 528,
Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989) 4
SCC 155, Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal
Corporation, Greater Mumbai (2004) 1 SCC 625,
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation,
Greater Mumbai (2009) 17 SCC 151, Maharashtra Ekta
Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai
G
(2009) 17 sec 231 (this order was passed on 30.07.2004 but
was printed in the journal only in 2009) and Gainda Ram vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010) 10 SCC 715, but the
situation has not changed in last four decades. Rather, the
problem has aggravated because of lackadaisical ~ttitude of
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A the administration at various levels and the legislative
instruments made many decades ago have become totally
ineffective.
6. In Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
(supra), L.M.Sharma, J., who authored the main judgment,
8
referred to a number of precedents including Saghir Ahmad
c
D
E
F
G
H
vs. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 728 and observed.
"17. So far as right of a hawker to transact business while
going from place to place is concerned, it has been
admittedly recognised for a long period. Of course, that
also is subject to proper regulation in the interest of general
convenience of the public including health and security
considerations. What about the right to squat on the
roadside for engaging in trading business? As was stated
by this Court in Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 528 the public
streets by their nomenclature and definition are meant for
the use of the general public: they are not laid to facilitate
the carrying on of private business. If hawkers were to be
conceded the right claimed by them. they could hold the
society to ransom by squatting on the busy thoroughfares.
thereby paralysing all civic life. This is one side of the
picture. On the other hand. if properly regulated according
to the exigency of the circumstances. the small traders on
the sidewalks can considerably add to the comfort and
convenience of 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 day's work can pick up these
articles without going out of his way to find a regular
market. If the circumstances are appropriate and a small
trader can do some business for personal gain on the
pavement to the advantage of the general public and
without any discomfort or annoyance to the others. we do
not see any objection to his carrying on the business.
Appreciating this analogy the municipalities of different
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL
747
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
cities and towns in the country have been allowing such
A
traders. The right to carry on trade or business mentioned
in Article 19(1)(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 for no other use. Proper regulation is. however. a
necessary condition as otherwise the very object of laying
out roads - to facilitate traffic - may be defeated. Allowing
the right to trade without appropriate control is likely to lead
B
to unhealthy competition and quarrel between traders and
travelling public and sometimes amongst the traders c
themselves resulting in chaos. The right is subject to
reasonable restrictions under clause (6) or Article 19. If the
matter is examined in its light it will appear that the principle
stated in Saghir Ahmad case (1955) 1 SCR 707:AIR 1954
SC 728 in connection with transport business applies to
0
the hawkers' case also. The proposition that all public
streets and roads in India vest in the State but that the
State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public, and
the members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to
use them as a matter of right, and that this right is limited
only by the similar rights possessed by every other citizen
to use the pathways, and further that the State as trustee
is entitled to impose all necessary limitations on the
character and extent of the user, should be treated as of
universal application."
(Emphasis supplied)
In his concurring opinion, Kuldip Singh, J. made the
following observations:
E
F
"33. In India there are large number of people who are
G
engaged in the business of "street trading". There is hardly
a household where hawkers do not reach. The housewives
wait for a vegetable vendor or a fruit seller who
conveniently delivers the daily needs at the doorstep. The
petitioners before us are street traders of Delhi and New
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
Delhi areas. Some of them have licenices/Tehbazari from
Municipal Corporation of Delhi/New Delhi Municipal
Committee but most of them are squatters. There is
practically no law regulating street trading in Delhi/New
Delhi. The skeletal provisions in the~ Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 and the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
can hardly provide any regulatory measures to the
enormous and complicated problem of street trading in
these areas.
35. Street trading being a fundamental rright has to be made
available to the citizens subject to Article 19(6) of the
Constitution. It is within the domain of the State to make
any law imposing reasonable, restrictions in the interest
of general public. This can be done by an enactment on
the same lines as in England or by any other law
permissible under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. In spite
of repeated suggestions by this Court nothing has been
done in this respect. Since a citizen has no right to choose
a particular place in any street for trading, it is for the State
to designate the streets and earmark the places from
where street trading can be done. Inaction on the part of
the State would result in negating the fundamental right of
the citizens. It is expected that the State will do the needful
in this respect within a reasonable time failing which it
would be left to the courts to protect the rights of the
citizens."
7. In Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal
Corporation, Greater Mumbai (supra), which was decided on
9.12.2003, a two Judge Bench referred to the judgments in
G Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC
545, Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
(supra), the recommendations made by the Committee
constituted pursuant to an earlier judgment and observed:
"10. The above authorities make it clear that the hawkers
H
have a right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
MAHARASHTRAEKTAHAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 749
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
India. This right, however, is subject to reasonable
A
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
B
fundamental right under Article 21 to carry 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, c
by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for
a comparatively lesser price. The scheme must keep in
mind the above principles. So far as Mumbai is concerned,
the scheme must comply with the conditions laid down in
Bombay Hawkers' Union case (1985) 3 SCC 528. Those
D
conditions have become final and there is no changed
circumstance which necessitates any alteration."
The Court then enumerated the following restrictions and
conditions subject to which the hawkers could do business in
Mumbai:
E
"(1) An area of 1 m x 1 m on one side of the footpath
wherever they exist or on an extreme side of the
carriageway, in such a manner that the vehicular and
pedestrian traffic is not obstructed and access to shops
F
and residences is not blocked. We further clarify that even
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, however, clarify that
aarey/sarita stalls and sugarcane vendors would require
G
and may be permitted an area of more than 1 m x 1 m
but not more than 2 m x 1 m.
(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
H
750
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
their goods from the sun, rain or wind. Obviously, this
condition would not apply to aarey/sarita stalls.
(3) There should be no hawking within 100 metres from
any place of worship, holy shrine, educational institutions
and hospitals or within 150 metres from any municipal or
other markets or from any railway station. There should be
no hawking on footbridges and overbridges. Further,
certain areas may be required to be kept free of hawkers
for security reasons. However, outside places of worship
hawkers can be 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, candles, agarbattis,
coconuts etc.
(4) The hawkers must not create any noise or play any
instrument or music for attracting the public or the
customers.
(5) They can only sell cooked foods, cut fruits, juices and
the like. We are unable to accept the 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
Regulations and the provisions of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act must be complied with.
(6) Hawking must be only between 7.00 a.m. and 10.00
p.m.
(7) Hawking will be on the basis of payment of a prescribed
G
fee to be fixed by BMC. However, the payment of
prescribed fee shall not be deemed to authorize the
hawker to do his business beyond the prescribed hours
and would not confer on the hawker the right to do business
at any particular place.
H
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 751
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(8) The hawkers must extend full cooperation to the
A
municipal 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
Undertaking, Bombay Telephones, BSES Ltd. etc. if they
B
require to lay any cable or any development work.
(9) No hawking would be permitted on any street which is
less than 8 metres in width. Further, the hawkers also have
to comply with the Development Control Rules, thus, there
C
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.
(10) BMC shall grant licences which will have photos of the
D
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.
(12) Vending of costly items e.g. electrical appliances,
video and audio tapes and cassettes, cameras, phones
etc. is to be prohibited. In the event of any hawker found
to be selling such items his licence must be cancelled
forthwith.
E
F
(13) In areas other than the non-hawking zones, licences
must be granted to the hawkers to do their business on
G
payment of the prescribed fee. The licences must be for
a period of 1 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
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 9 S.C.R.
not 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 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 by bringing to the notice of the
ward officer concerned the presence of a hawker in a nonhawking zone/area. The ward officer concerned shall take
immediate ~teps 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 complaint and if found
correct, the Committee will with the help of police remove
the hawker. The officer in charge of the police station
concerned 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 confidential record
of the ward officer concerned. 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 six such
entries are found in the records of an officer it shall be a
ground for termination of service. For the work of attending
to such complaints BMC shall pay to the Chairman a fixed
honorarium of Rs 10,000 p.m.
(16) ihe scheme framed by us will have a binding effect
on all concerned. Thus, apart from those to whom licences
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 753
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
will now be issued, no other person/body will have any right
A
to squat or carry on any hawking or other business on the
roads/streets. We direct that BMC shall bring this judgment
to the notice of all courts in which matters are now pending.
We are quite sure that the court(s) concerned shall then
suitably vacate/modify its injunction/stay order."
B
8. By an order dated 30.07.2004, which is reported in
(2009) 17 SCC 231 (Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs.
Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai), the Court modified
order dated 09.12.2003 and permitted handicapped persons
who were granted licence for running PCOs/Aarey/Sarita stalls
C
to continue to run those stalls even in non-hawking zones with
the rider that no further or new licences be granted to any other
person.
9. The matter did not stop there. The issue was again
D
examined in the judgment reported in (2009) 17 sec 151
(Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs. Municipal Corporation,
Greater Mumbai). In that case, a two Judge Bench took
cognizance of National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004
and observed:
E
"41. 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 regulations as
envisaged in Section 10.1 of the National Policy. We hope
and trust that the State Government will pursue the matter
with right earnest and bring it to logical conclusion within
the time stipulated.
F
42. We clarify that the regulations so framed by the State
G
would be in consonance with the aims and objects of the
National Policy to render some sort of succour to the urban
street vendors to eke out a living through hawking.
43. We also clarify that the State Government shall frame
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
regulations in order to solve the problem of hawkers
independently without being influenced by any scheme
framed by us or any direction issued by this Court in the
interregnum. We further clarify that the schemes and
directions issued by this Court are purely temporary in
B
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 framed and implemented."
C The two Judge Bench also restrained all other Courts from
interpreting its order or passing any order touching upon the
subject matter dealt with by this Court. Simultaneously, hearing
of the writ petitions pending before all the High Courts was
stayed and it was ordained that if any clarification I modification
D is required then the same must be obtained from this Court.
10. In Gainda Ram vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(2010) 10 sec 715, the problem was considered in the context
of Delhi. After taking cognizance of the fact that various
E committees were set up by the administration to solve the
problem of street vendors I hawkers, the Bench referred to the
National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 (for short, 'the
2009 Policy'), the Master Plan of Delhi, 2012, the Model Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
F Vending) Bi'' 2009 prepared by the Government of India,
G
H
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and observed:
"67. In the background of the provisions in the Bill and the
2009 Policy, it is clear that an attempt is made to regulate
the fundamental right of street hawking and street vending
by law, since it has been declared by this Court that the
right to hawk on the streets or right to carry on street
vending is part of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).
However, till the law is made the attempt made by NDMC
and MCD to regulate this right by framing schemes which
are not statutory in nature is not exactly within the
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 755
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
contemplation of constitutional provisions discussed
A
above. However, such schemes have been regulated from
time to time by this Court for several years as pointed out
above. Even, orders passed by this Court, in trying to
regulate such hawking and street vending, is not law either.
At the same time, there is no denying the fact that hawking
B
and street vending should be regulated by law. Such a law
is imminently necessary in public interest."
The Court also referred to the mechanism established by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi for redressing the grievance of
the street vendors/hawkers and issued the following directions:
C
"77. In view of such schemes, the hawkers, squatters and
vendors must abide by the dispute redressal mechanism
mentioned above. There should not be any direct approach
to this Court by way of fresh petitions or IAs, bypassing
D
the dispute redressal mechanism provided in the schemes.
78. However, before 30-6-2011, the appropriate
Government is to enact a law on the basis of the Bill
mentioned above or on the basis of any amendment
E
thereof so that the hawkers may precisely know the
contours of their rights. This Court is giving this direction
in exercise of its jurisdiction to protect the fundamental
rights of the citizens.
79. The hawkers' and squatters' or vendors' right to carry
F
on hawking has been recognised as a fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(g). At the same time the right of the
commuters to move freely and use the roads without any
impediment is also a fundamental right under Article
19(1)(d). These two apparently conflicting rights must be
G
harmonised and regulated by subjecting them to
reasonable restrictions only under a law. The question is,
therefore, vitally important to a very large section of people,
mostly ordinary men and women. Such an issue cannot be
left to be decided by schemes and which are monitq_red
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ""' '[2013) 9 $-:c.R.
A
by this Court from time to time."
11. When these appeals and applications were taken up
for hearing, Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
representing some of the street vendors I hawkers produced
B Twenty Third Report of the Standing Committee on Urban
Development (2012-2013) prepared in the context of the Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Bill, 2012 and submitted that till Parliament enacts
appropriate legislation for protecting the rights of the urban
street vendors I hawkers, the Court may ordain implementation
C of the 2009 Policy with liberty to the parties to approach
appropriate judicial forums for redressal of their grievance.
They and learned counsel representing the municipal bodies I
authorities, residents and others lamented that due to the
restrictions imposed by this Court, no other Court is entertaining
D the grievance made by the street vendors I hawkers on the one
hand and the residents of various colonies and other people
on the other hand and this is the reason why dozens of
interlocutory applications are being filed in this Court every year
in the decided matters. They suggested that the embargo
E placed by this Court on the entertaining of writ petitions, etc.,
by the High Courts should be lifted and a direction be given
that till the enactment of appropriate legislation by Parliament
or any other competent legislature, the 2009 Policy should be
implemented throughout the country. Shri Shyam Divan, learned
F senior counsel, extensively referred to some of the precedents
and submitted that the Bombay High Court should be directed
to specifically deal with the issue related to establishment of
hawking and non-hawking zones so that the residents may not
be adversely affected due to un-regulated street vending and
G hawking activities in different parts of the city of Mumbai.
H
12. Shri Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
argued that the street vendors I hawkers cannot be allowed to
occupy public spaces at each and every place and the scheme
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 757
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
framed by the Corporation in compliance of the directions given
A
by this Court does not require any modification. Shri Vijay
Hansaria, Shri Anand Grover, learned Senior Advocates and
Shri Sushil Kumar Jain and other learned counsel emphasized
that this Court should direct the municipal authorities to
accommodate all the street vendors I hawkers and stop their
B
harassment, exploitation and victimization by the State
agencies. Shri Prashant Bhushan emphasized that despite the
directions given by this Court from time to time, including the
interim order passed in relation to the street vendors I hawkers
in Delhi, the concerned authorities are not allowing them to c
conduct their activities. He further argued that the street vendors
I hawkers should be allowed to operate in accordance with the
provisions of 2009 Policy and the concerned authorities should
ensure that everybody is given licence for carrying out his I her
activity. Learned counsel for the parties also suggested that the
D
decision(s) of the Town Vending Committees should be
published on regular intervals in print and electronic media and
the internet and the High Courts should be asked to monitor
implementation of various provisions of the 2009 Policy.
13. At the conclusion of hearing, the Court had given time
E
to the parties to file written submissions I suggestions. On 7th
August, 2013, Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the
applicants in IA Nos. 322-323 of 2013 and 324-325 of 2013
filed written suggestions. On 8th August, 2013, a written note
was filed on behalf of Citizen Forum for Protection of Public
F
Spaces (CitiSpace), which was allowed to act as intervenor in
the special leave petitions filed by Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers
Union.
14. We have considered the respective arguments I
G
submissions. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that
the orders passed by this Court from time to time have not
solved the problems of the street vendors I hawkers and the
residents of the cities of Delhi and Mumbai and almost every
year they have been seeking intervention of this Court by filing
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A interlocutory applications. The experience has, however, shown
that it is virtually impossible for this Court to monitor day to day
implementation of the provisions of different enactments and
the directions contained in the judgments noted hereinabove.
Therefore, it will be appropriate to lift the embargo placed on
B the entertaining of matters by the High Courts and we order
accordingly. Paragraph 45 of the judgment reported in (2009)
17 sec 151 shall stand modified and the street vendors I
hawkers, the residents and others adversely affected by street
vending I hawking shall henceforth be entitled to invoke the
c jurisdiction of the concerned High Courts for redressal of their
grievance.
15. In Gainda Ram's case (paragraph 78), this Court had
directed that appropriate Government should enact a law on
or before 30th June, 2011. Once the Street Vendors
D (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill,
2012 becomes law, the livelihood of millions would be saved
and they will get protection against constant harassment and
victimization which has so far been an order of the day.
However, till the needful is done, it will be apposite for the Court
E to step in and direct that the 2009 Policy, of which the salient
provisions are extracted below, should be implemented
throughout the country:
F
G
H
"1.8 A centre piece of this Policy is the role of Town
Vending Committee (henceforth referred to as TVC) to be
constituted at City/Town level. A TVC shall be coordinated
by a convener who should be nominated by the urban local
body concerned. The Chairman of TVC will be the
Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer of the concerned
urban local body. The TVC will adopt a participatory
approach and supervise the entire process of planning,
organisation and regulation of street vending activities,
thereby facilitating the implementation of this Policy.
Further, it will provide an institutional mechanism for due
appreciation of the ground realities and harnessing of local
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 759
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
knowledge for arriving at a consensus on critical issues
A
of management of street vending activities. The TVC may
constitute, in collaboration with the local authority, Ward
Vending Committee to assist in the discharge of its
functions.
B
1.9 This Policy adopts the considered opinion that there
should not be any cut off date or limit imposed on the
number of vendors who should be permitted to vend in any
city/town, subject to registration of such vendors and
regulation through the TVC. At any time, an urban poor
C
person can decide that he or she would like to go to a
wholesale market, purchase some items and sell these in
vending zones during permitted hours to make an honest
living. The vendor may not be subject to undue restrictions
if he/she wishes to change the trade. In order to.make this
conceptual right a practically feasible right, the following
D
would be necessary:
i) Vendor markets/outlets should be developed in which
space could be made available to hawkers/vendors on a
time-sharing model on the basis of a roster. Let us say that
E
there are 500 such vending places in about a 100 new
vendors' markets/push cart markets/motorized vending
outlets. Let us also assume that there are 5,000 vendors
who want to apply for a vending site on a time-sharing
basis. Then by a simple process of mathematical analysis,
F
a certain number of days or hours on particular days could
be fixed for each vendor in a vending place on a roster
basis through the concerned TVC.
ii)
In addition to vendors' markets/outlets, it would be
desirable to promote week-end markets in public G
maidans, parade grounds or areas meant for religious
festivals. The week-end markets can be run on a firstcome-first-serve basis depending on the number of
vending sites that can be accommodated in the
designated area and the number of vendors seeking
H
760
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 9 S.C.R.
vending places. However, in order to be equitable, in case
there is a heavy demand from vendors the number of weekends a given vendor can be allocated a site on the firstcome-first-serve basis can be restricted to one or two in
a month depending on demand.
iii) A registered vendor can be permitted to vend in
designated vending zones without restrictions, especially
during non-rush hours. Again in places like verandahs or
parking lots in areas such as central business districts,
e.g. Connaught Place in New Delhi, vendors' markets can
be organized after the closing of the regular markets. Such
markets, for example, can be run from 7.30 PM to 10.30
PM as night bazaars on a roster basis or a first-come-firstserve basis, with suitable restrictions determined by the
concerned TVC and authorities.
iv) It is desirable that all City/Town Master Plans make
specific provisions for creating new vending markets at the
time of finalization/revision of Master Plans, Zonal Plans
and Local Area Plans. The space reserved in such plans
should be commensurate with the current number of
vendors and their rate of growth on perspective basis (say
10-20 years) based on rate of growth over a preceding 5year period.
This Policy attempts to address some of the above
concerns, keeping the interests of street vendors in view
vis-a-vis conflicting public interests.
3. Objectives
G
3.1 Overarching Objective
The overarching objective to be achieved through this
Policy is:
To provide for and promote a supportive environment for
H
the vast mass of urban street vendors to carry out their
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 761
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
vocation while at the same time ensuring that their vending
A
activities do not lead to overcrowding and unsanitary
conditions in public spaces and streets.
3.2 Specific Objectives
This Policy aims to develop a legal framework through a
model law on street vending which can be adopted by
States/Union Territories with suitable modifications to take
into account their geographical/local conditions. The
specific objectives of this Policy are elaborated as follows:
a) Legal Status:
To give street vendors a legal status by formulating an
B
c
_appropriate law and thereby providing for legitimate
vending/hawking zones in city/town master or development
plans including zonal, local and layout plans and ensuring
D
their enforcement;
b) Civic Facilities:
To provide civic facilities for appropriate use of identified . E
spaces as vending/hawking zones, vendors' markets or
vending areas in accordance with city/town master plans
including zonal, local and layout plans;
c) Transparent Regulation:
F
To eschew imposing numerical limits on access to public
spaces by discretionary licenses, and instead moving to
nominal fee-based regulation of access, where previous
occupancy of space by the street vendors determines the
allocation of space or creating new informal sector
G
markets where space access is on a temporary turn-byturn basis. All allotments of space, whether permanent or
temporary should be based on payment of a prescribed
fee fixed by the local authority on the recommendations of
the Town Vending Committee to be constituted under this
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
Policy;
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
d) Organization of Vendors:
To promote, where necessary, organizations of street
vendors e.g. unions I co-operatives I associations and
other forms of organizations to facilitate their collective
empowerment;
e) Participative Processes:
To set up participatory processes that involve firstly, local
authority, planning authority and police; secondly,
associations of street vendors; thirdly, resident welfare
associations and fourthly, other civil society organizations
such as NGOs, representatives of professional groups
(such as lawyers, doctors, town planners, architects etc.),
representatives of trade and commerce, representatives
of scheduled banks and eminent citizens;
f) Self-Regulation:
To promote norms of civic discipline by institutionalizing
mechanisms of self-management and self-regulation in
matters relating to hygiene, including waste disposal etc.
amongst street vendors both in the individually allotted
areas as well as vending zones/clusters with collective
responsibility for the entire vending zone/cluster; and
g) Promotional Measures:
To promote access of street vendors to such services as
credit, skill development, housing, social security and
capacity building. For such promotion, the services of Self
Help Groups (SHGs)/Co-operatives/ Federations/Micro
Finance Institutions (MFls), Training Institutes etc. should
be encouraged.
4.2 Demarcation of Vending Zones
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL 763
CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
The demarcation of 'Restriction-free Vending Zones',
A
'Restricted Vending Zones' and 'No-vending Zones' should
be city/town specific.