The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of elections conducted on August 29, 2024 for constituting the Town Vending Committee (TVC) in Mumbai, rejecting a batch of petitions challenging the voter list and the electoral process under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata held that the voters’ list, comprising approximately 32,000 eligible street vendors, was prepared in accordance with the statutory framework, the 2009 National Hawkers Policy, and binding judicial directions. The Court clarified that inclusion in the 2014 survey list of 99,435 vendors did not confer an automatic right to vote, and that scrutiny of individual eligibility was both necessary and lawful.
Rejecting the challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Rule 15 of the 2016 Rules, the Court noted that the voter list had been duly published, objections were invited and considered, and the final electoral roll was prepared well before the elections. It held that the elections were conducted in accordance with law and did not warrant any interference.
The Court accordingly upheld the elections conducted under Section 22(2)(d) of the Act and directed that the results be declared immediately. It further directed the authorities to proceed with the constitution and functioning of the Town Vending Committee and to implement the Street Vendors Act in its true letter and spirit.
In a significant set of directions, the Court permitted 99,435 hawkers already found eligible to continue vending strictly in accordance with applicable guidelines, and directed that the remaining 29,008 applicants be verified, preferably within four months, and permitted to vend only upon such verification. It made clear that no other persons would be allowed to carry on hawking activities unless found eligible under the prescribed framework, and directed that all unauthorised hawkers be removed forthwith.
The Bench also directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to undertake a comprehensive inspection and scrutiny of all stalls temporary or permanent operating on roads and footpaths across the city. Additionally, the BMC and police authorities were directed to verify the identity of all persons engaged in vending activities, including those suspected to be foreign nationals. The Court ordered that appropriate action be taken against illegal immigrants in accordance with law, including repatriation, and cautioned that failure to act would attract personal liability of the concerned officers.
While disposing of all petitions and pending applications, the Court expressed concern over the prolonged delay in implementing the statutory framework under the Street Vendors Act, noting that the absence of a fully functional TVC and scheme has caused hardship to both vendors and the general public. It emphasised the need for immediate and effective enforcement of the law to balance livelihood rights with public convenience.
The Court also placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae Jamshed Mistry, noting that his submissions were of considerable help in resolving the complex issues involved in the case.
The Court also refused a request made on behalf of certain petitioners to continue earlier ad-interim relief for a period of two weeks to enable them to approach the Supreme Court. Declining the plea, the Bench observed that repeated litigation by various parties had significantly delayed the implementation of the Street Vendors Act, noting that even after more than eight years since the Azad Hawkers Union judgment, the statutory framework remains unimplemented. In view of this, the Court held that no grounds were made out to stay the operation of its judgment and rejected the request.
Appearances:
Mr. Jamshed Mistry a/w. Mr. Dipesh Siroya, Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Punit Jain, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. S. Khan for the Petitioner in WP/29339/2024.
Ms. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Khalik Rehman and Mr. Shantanu Shetty for the Petitioners in WPL/3690/2025 and WPL/25070/2024.
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Kaustubh Gidh for the Petitioner in WP/3700/2025.
Mr. Pradhuman Chauhan a/w. Adv. Ratiullah Shaikh and Ms. Zainab Shaikh for the Petitioner in WP/727/2025.
Ms. Leela Malu for the Petitioner in WPL/7275/2025.
Mr. Prerak Choudhary a/w. Ms. Anisha Balse for the Applicant in IA(L)/8953/2025 in WP/727/2025.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w. Ms. Apporva Tipsay (‘B’ Panel Counsel) and Ms. Rita Joshi, AGP for the Respondent-State in WPL/4022/2025.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w. Ms. Apporva Tipsay (‘B’ Panel Counsel) and Mr. Nishigandh Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State in WPL/4024/2025.
Mr. D.P. Singh for Respondent No.6 – Union of India in WP/3700/2025.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w. Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State in WP/727/2025.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w. Mr. Jay Shanklecha (‘B’ Panel Counsel) and Ms. Madhura Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 – State in WPL/7275/2025.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP and Ms. Fatima Lakdawala, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 – State in WP/3690/2025.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w. Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 – State in WP/3700/2025.
Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. GP a/w. Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 – State in WPL/25070/2024.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w. Mr. Mohit Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 – State in WPL/29339/2024.
Mr. Anil Singh, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Vaishali Ugale for the Respondent–BMC in WPL/7275/2025 and WP/3690/2025.
Ms. Vaishali Ugale for the Respondent–BMC in WPL/4022/2025 and WPL/4024/2025.
Ms. Vaishali Ugale for the Respondent–BMC in WP/3700/2025 and WPL/25070/2024.
Mr. Chaitanya Chavan a/w. Ms. Vaishali Ugale for the Respondent–BMC in WPL/29339/2024 and WP/727/2025.
Mr. Sharad Ayare, Deputy Superintendent of Licence, BMC, present.
Mr. Anil Shewale, Assistant Superintendent of Licence, BMC, present.
