Bombay High Court
Palima Rajendra Kondar Tata Nagar ... vs Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 12 February, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3890 OF 2021
Palima Rajendra Kondar Tata Nagar .. Petitioners
Zopadpatti and Ors
Versus
Deputy Commissioner and Ors .. Respondents
...
Adv. Kranti L.C. i/b Kaustubh Gidh for the petitioners.
Adv. Tejesh Dande a/w Adv. Bharat Gadhavi, Adv. Parth Talekar for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (NMMC).
Mr. Atmaram Kale, Asst. Engineer, NMMC, present.
Mr. Swapnil Tarmale (Sr. Clerk, NMMC), present.
Mr. Avinash Naik - Assistant, Directorate of Municipal
Administration.
Smt. S.A. Prabhune, AGP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 12th FEBRUARY, 2026 P.C:-
1. More than a decade since the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, was enacted by the Parliament to protect the rights of the urban street vendors and to regulate street vending activities, and more than eight years having been lapsed when the Division Bench of this Court exhaustively issued guidelines about implementation of the Act of 2014 and the Ruled framed therein in case of Azad Hawkers Union, heard along with a Public Interest Litigation raising an issue about its implementation and a challenge being raised to a scheme purportedly Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 ::: 2/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc framed under Section 38 of the Act by the Government Resolution dated 9/01/2017, we find that the State is still lurking in dark about the implementation of the Statute as well as the directives contained in the judgment of the Division Bench, speaking through Justice B.R. Gavai (as his Lordship then was).
2. The Petition before us, filed by the individual Petitioners and Maharashtra Hawkers Federation, pertains to Navi Mumbai, Municipal Corporation, and the Petitioners in specific are aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the Municipal Corporation, in not adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, when, under the directions of the office bearers of the Municipal Corporation, the goods of the street vendors are seized and they reclaim the said goods. The Petitioners are therefore constrained to seek an appropriate direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to draw a list of goods along with quantity, thereon to be countersigned by the Street Vendor and witnesses thereto, while seizing the goods and ensure that the hawkers are returned their confiscated perishable goods as contemplated within the timeline prescribed in Section 19 of the Act.
3. During the course of hearing of the Petition, it is pointed out to us that this is all happening because till date there is no scheme formulated by the Corporation or the State Government under Section 38 of the Act.
We took cognizance of this grievance and noted the same in our order dated 12/01/2026, directing the Government Advocate to seek necessary instructions.
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 :::
3/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc
Pursuant thereto, we have an affidavit placed before us affirmed by the Joint Secretary of the Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, responding to our order and updating us about the steps that have been taken by the State Government as regards the implementation of the provisions of the Act and, on our specific query, whether the scheme as contemplated under Section 38 is formulated.
4. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Urban Development Department and the Directorate of the Municipal Administration inform us that continuous efforts are being taken by addressing various letters to the Urban Local Bodies for implementing and formulating the scheme under the Street Vendor Act, 2014. It is informed that due to continuous follow-up and meticulous efforts, there is a considerable progress and this is placed through the affidavit, by highlighting below:-
Sr. No. Phases Status in January 2026
(Number of Urban local
Bodies)
1. Formation of nominated Town Vending 411
Committee.
2. Completion of Street Vendors survey. 410
3. Street Vendors Election completed. 372
4. Notified Elected Town Vending Committee. 280
5. Completed Consultation on scheme with 18
Town Vending Committee and local authority
and sent to notify to Government.
5. Informing the Court that only the City of Nagpur had taken efforts to formulate the scheme, it is informed that the scheme Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 ::: 4/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc prepared for Nagpur city was put up for approval on considering the objections and suggestions, and the scheme was approved in the meeting of Town Vending Committee on 18/04/2023. As per Section 38(1), the Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation submitted a scheme for Government approval, and the Urban Development Department is in the progress of finalizing the Street Vendor Scheme for Nagpur City.
As far as Navi Mumbai Corporation is concerned, it is informed that the Town Vending Committee has been established as per the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009, and the corporation is in the process to conduct elections of street vendors, and thereafter the Town Vending Committee shall be formulated. It is only on notifying the Town Vending Committee the scheme shall be formulated by the corporation on the scheme that was conceptualized vide government resolution dated 9/01/2017, and it shall then be made applicable.
A categorical statement is made on affidavit that remaining corporations are in the process of finalizing the scheme in near future, and the State Government is monitoring the same.
6. On going through the aforesaid affidavit, and it being looked into in the backdrop of the Act of 2014 and the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, in Azad Hawkers Union (supra), we raised certain queries, and we are unable to find answers to them during the course of today's hearing.
The first question that arises for consideration is whether the scheme contemplated under Section 38 of the Act, which is to be Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 ::: 5/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc prepared by the appropriate government after due consultation with the local authority and Town Vending Committee, providing for the particulars set out in Second Schedule, is a scheme to be applicable throughout the State, and as it is revealed to us through the affidavit, as the State Government contemplates different schemes for different urban areas/ municipal areas/cities. We are informed that as far as Nagpur Corporation is concerned, the scheme is in pipeline.
Prima facie looking to the scheme of the enactment, we are of the view that what is contemplated is a common scheme applicable to the State of Maharashtra, and we are fortified in our opinion, as the learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed before us a compilation of the schemes formulated in different States in the country, and this include a list of 33 States.
The compilation has specifically annexed the scheme formulated by Government of Karnataka, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, by the Urban Development Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi, as well as Government of Kerala etc.
7. On perusal of the schemes formulated in various States, we have noticed that the scheme is formulated in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 38 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and the scheme is aimed to enhance capacity, provide a supportive and enabling environment to the street vendors to carry out their vocation and to promote business best practices among street vending business for sustainable growth in accordance with the Act of 2014, and the Rules framed therein.
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 :::
6/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc
The scheme covers various issues as contemplated in schedule II, including the survey, certificate of vending, terms and conditions for issue of certificate of vending, issuance of identity card or smart card, classification of street vendors, vending fees, recovery of vending fees, cancellation or suspension of certificate of vending, relocation of street vendors and also manner and method of eviction of vendors, seizure and disposal of goods as well as reclaiming of the seized goods and the fees for the same.
8. On perusal of the scheme, which are formulated by various States, it can be seen that the provisions of the Act and the Rules are sought to be implemented through the scheme that is formulated in order to achieve the underlying object of the statute, being to protect the rights of the street vendors and to permit them to carry out their activity in a regulatory manner.
9. We are rather amazed to note that the State Government has not yet formulated the scheme, though an attempt was made earlier by formulating a scheme vide Government Resolution dated 9/01/2017, but the judgment in Azad Hawkers Union clarified that it is not a scheme under Section 38, as the State Government itself made a statement before the Court that the G.R. dated 9/01/2017, which contemplated a scheme, was only published for conducting survey of existing town vendors, as there had to be a scheme for guidance of TVC. The Court therefore specifically observed that the scheme is a general scheme with suggestive guidelines and is applicable to the entire State of Maharashtra, and admittedly, no scheme is framed as contemplated under Section 38, which is with consultation with the local authorities and the TVC and therefore the Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 ::: 7/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc said scheme cannot be considered to be a scheme under Section 38 of the said Act.
10. Down the line, after the judgment was delivered in the year 2017, the effort of the State Government to formulate a Scheme under Section 38 is still unaccomplished and we find the justification in the affidavit filed before us by the Joint Secretary, stating that since the Town Vending Committees are not in existence in all 424 Municipal Council/Corporations and therefore, one by one the Corporations/the Municipal Bodies have forwarded their schemes and the consultation on the scheme with the Town Vending Committee and the local authority is an ongoing process.
We are surprised to note that the manner in which the State Government is dealing with a serious issue, despite of the directions being issued by various Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union as well as an exhaustive decision of this Court in case of Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal and Ors. vs MCGM and Ors delivered as early as on 23/10/2015, to be followed by the decision in case of Azad Hawkers Union pronounced on 1/11/2017.
11. We are informed that there are three other petitions pending in this Court revolving around the rights of the hawkers, and the implementation of the Act, including non-implementation of Section 20, which contemplate forming of a grievance redressal committee in form of a Dispute Redressal Mechanism. When we specifically inquired with the learned AGP, on instructions from the officer present in the Court, she submit that the State Government is in confusion whether this Committee has to be State-wise or District-
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 :::
8/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc
wise.
If this was the conundrum faced, it was always open for the State Government to seek a clarification from the Court which had delivered the judgment or in the Petitions which are constantly brought before this Court through various hawking organizations, but in any case, we do not find this to be justified for not establishing a mechanism despite by a statute enacted as early as in 2014.
Despite, the enactment providing for all necessary details being supplemented by the Rules framed in exercise of the Rule making power, we find that the State Government is dragging its feet in implementing the provisions of the Act and the Rules and also following the mandate of law as laid down by the Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the judgment to which we have made reference.
12. In light of the aforesaid situation emerging before us while hearing the writ petition though it is restricted to Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, we deem it appropriate to have before us an affidavit filed by the Secretary of Urban Development Department, clarifying the following issues:-
(a) Whether the Scheme contemplated under Section 38 of the Act, will be a scheme which is applicable throughout the State and what is the timeline within which the scheme shall be framed.
(b) Whether the State Government intend to wait till the last Municipal Council/ Corporation form a Town Vending Committee, as Section 38 contemplate consultation with the Town Vending Committee and the local body and particularly when the nominated Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 ::: 9/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc Town Vending Committee is in existence according to its own affidavit at 411 places and street vendor survey is completed at 410 places.
(c) Whether the redressal mechanism in form of the redressal committee as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act are already established and what is the jurisdiction of those committees and particularly when the State of Maharashtra has already framed Maharashtra Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vendors) Maharashtra Rules, 2016, providing for constitution of grievance redressal and dispute resolution committee for each local authority.
Let the affidavit provide the details of the Committees so constituted.
(d) On collecting the data from the Municipal Corporations or the Municipal Councils, the affidavit shall also state the procedure being followed, when the goods are seized from the vendors and the manner in which they are returned to them on following the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Act.
13. As far as the subject matter of the Petition is concerned, since the Petitioners have raised a specific grievance about non-adherence to the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, we direct the Municipal Corporation to file a separate affidavit, pointing out to us whether what steps are followed when the goods of a vendor for any reason are picked up and what is the procedure that is followed where the goods are required to be returned, and the timeline within which the goods Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 ::: 10/10 10 WP-3890-2021.doc confiscated are handed over to the vendor.
14. We expect the affidavit to be filed within a period of two weeks from today i.e. on or before 28/02/2026.
List the Writ Petition on 5/03/026 for further consideration. Learned AGP to communicate the Order.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:17:49 :::