Verify If Bangladeshi Immigrants Hawking On Mumbai Streets, Take Action As Per Law: Bombay High Court To BMC, Police
The Bombay High Court on Monday (March 23) ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mumbai Police to conduct a 'thorough' verification of the identity of all the hawkers on the streets of the city and check if there are any 'Bangladeshis' or other 'immigrants' involved in hawking activities, and if found, the authorities have been ordered to take 'appropriate' action...
The Bombay High Court on Monday (March 23) ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mumbai Police to conduct a 'thorough' verification of the identity of all the hawkers on the streets of the city and check if there are any 'Bangladeshis' or other 'immigrants' involved in hawking activities, and if found, the authorities have been ordered to take 'appropriate' action against them.
A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata took into account the contention raised before it by the Maharashtra Hawker Sangh (a hawkers' union) which contended that the State is presently confronted with the serious issue of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, many of whom are allegedly engaged in hawking activities. The presence of such immigrants, the union highlighted, not only posed a concern for local residents but was also a source of daily friction even with local vendors and hawkers.
"The BMC and the Police shall immediately undertake a thorough verification of the identity of all persons, including those alleged to be Bangladeshis or other non-Indian nationals, who operate stalls or carry on vending or hawking activities, or work as assistants or helpers to such stall holders, vendors or hawkers. In the event any person is found to be an illegal immigrant, appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law, including steps for repatriation by the competent Authorities. It is clarified that any failure to undertake the necessary action in this regard shall entail personal liability on the part of all the concerned Officers," the bench ordered in clear terms.
The judges further said that it would be thoroughly imprudent and insensitive for the Court to ignore the prevailing hazards and the consequences of inaction, allowing the issue to fester until it ultimately confronts the State with far graver consequences.
"The prevailing situation, as brought to our notice, is deeply disconcerting. Citizens are increasingly confronted with serious and recurring impediments in their daily lives, inter alia, as: Pedestrians are unable to use footpaths, which remain encroached upon, compelling them to walk on the carriageways and thereby exposing themselves to risk; Women, children and senior citizens bear the brunt of such conditions and are placed in constant danger; Senior citizens and persons with disabilities find it virtually impossible to step out of their homes with safety and dignity; Overcrowded areas with high footfall create situations where instances of inappropriate physical contact, particularly affecting women, are reported, with little practical recourse in such circumstances," the judges emphasised.
Further, the judges pointed out that due to the menace of hawkers, residents experience difficulty in accessing buildings abutting public roads and, upon raising complaints, are allegedly subjected to threats and intimidation; emergency services, including fire brigades and ambulances, are unable to reach residential societies owing to the occupation of narrow lanes by vendors; shop owners, who have invested substantial resources in their establishments, find their entrances and display windows obstructed, rendering their premises virtually invisible to passers-by and adversely affecting their livelihood.
"In certain areas, incidents of physical assault have been reported and in some cases, danger to the life has also been alleged. It has further been brought to our notice that during the pendency of the present Petition, one Atul Vora, an elderly citizen who had raised grievances regarding hawkers and encroachments, was brutally assaulted and faced hospitalisation for a considerable period," the judges noted.
In its 56-page judgment, the bench upheld the August 2024 elections constituting the first Town Vending Committee for Mumbai, which was challenged by various unions of hawkers, alleging that the voters list finalised and notified by the BMC in November 2023 comprising only 32,000 hawkers was illegal as by a survey conducted way back in 2014, a total of 99,435 such hawkers were identified to be eligible hawkers and thus, granting the right to vote to only 32,000 hawkers rendered the entire elections process illegal.
However, the BMC contended that though the 99, 435 voters were held eligible for hawking by a coordinate bench of the High Court in November 2017, yet they did not automatically get any right to cast vote rather, they were eligible to be subjected to 'scrutiny' under the Maharashtra Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2016.
The judges held that the contention that eligibility to hawk ipso facto conferred a right to vote as 'misconceived.'
"The protection extended to 99,435 hawkers (by November 2017 order) did not obviate the requirement of scrutiny of their individual applications, nor did it dispense with the obligation to submit requisite documentation for inclusion in the voters' list. The BMC was duty-bound to implement the 2009 National Hawkers Policy. The State/BMC cannot be faulted for declining incomplete or deficient applications," the judges held.
The bench noted that from 2014 till 2021 and finally in 2023, the list of eligible voters was being updated by the BMC yet no 'contemporaneous' objections were raised by these unions against 'non-inclusion' in the voters list.
The judges noted that there has been a delay of nearly a decade for non-implementation of the 2017 order for constituting the TVC and further implementing the Rules of 2016 due to some or the other reasons, particularly at the behest of such unions, which have been challenging the process on some or the other ground.
"In our considered view, any further delay in the implementation of the Act would prove detrimental not only to the Petitioners but equally to the citizens at large, who continue to endure persistent and daily hardship on account of the non-implementation of the statutory framework. Permitting the 99,435 vendors to participate in the first constitution of the TVC, despite the rejection of their eligibility and documentation upon scrutiny, would create an anomalous and untenable situation for the State and give rise to avoidable complications. Such a course would not only dilute the mandate of the 2009 Policy, which this Court has consistently directed to be adhered to, but would also disrupt the ongoing electoral process and potentially set it back by several years," the bench opined.
The judges further explained that once a TVC would be constituted, comprising of 30 members, of which most would be the representatives of the hawkers, the list of 99,435 hawkers can again be revised and the voters' list can further be updated as this would not be the last TVC to be constituted.
"We also cannot lose sight of the substantial public expenditure already incurred in conducting the present electoral exercise. The BMC has been divided into eight zones for the purpose of these elections and the administrative machinery has been fully mobilised. To stall the process at this advanced stage would only increase the financial burden on the public exchequer and further delay the long-awaited implementation of the statutory scheme," the judges held.
With these observations, the judges disposed of the batch of petitions.
Appearance:
Senior Advocates Punit Jain, Gayatri Singh and Mihir Desai assisted by Advocates S Khan, Khalik Rehman, Shantanu Shetty, Kaustubh Gidh, Pradhuman Chauhan, Ratiullah Shaikh, Zainab Shaikh, Leela Malu, Prerak Choudhary and Anisha Balse appeared for various Unions of Hawkers.
Government Pleader Poornima Kantharia, Additional Government Pleaders Mohit Jadhav, Jyoti Jagtap along with Assistant Government Pleaders Fatima Lakdawala, Amar Mishra and Vikrant Parshurami and Advocates Jay Shanklecha and Madhura Deshmukh represented the State.
Senior Advocate Anil Singh along with Advocates Chaitanya Chavan and Vaishali Ugale represented the BMC.
Advocate Dhirendra Pratap Singh represented the Union of India.
Case Title: Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs Town Vending Committee - MCGM [Writ Petition (L) 29339 of 2024]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 137