Bombay High Court Criticizes BMC Over Ongoing Illegal Hawking Issue in Mumbai
Mumbai, 9th October 2024: A bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, criticized the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) during a suo motu PIL addressing the rising problem of illegal hawking in Mumbai. The court highlighted the ongoing presence of hawkers despite the BMC’s assertions of consistent removal efforts, emphasizing the lack of effective implementation. The judges proposed that the state deploy the State Reserve Police Force (SRPF) to aid BMC officials in their operations against unauthorized hawkers.
Justice Gadkari initially considered pausing the proceedings to allow senior BMC officials to inspect compliance with court orders regarding hawker removal. However, after a brief exchange, the BMC’s counsel admitted the city was not entirely free of hawkers, prompting the court to continue the hearing.
The BMC counsel acknowledged their shortcomings, stating, “We are taking regular action, but unfortunately, hawkers return. It’s risky for us to repeatedly visit the same locations. You are correct that hawking has not ceased completely. The vending committee is not operational. We made efforts to conduct elections and were close to announcing results when the Supreme Court imposed a stay.”
The BAR council representative highlighted that a previous court order in 2017 directed police to protect municipal officials during hawker removals, stressing that rehashing these issues in court was unproductive. The immediate concern remains hawkers occupying footpaths and roads, forcing pedestrians onto the streets.
Citing numerous past court orders, the BAR council asserted, “BMC presents images showing actions taken against hawkers, but our visits reveal large numbers of hawkers still present on those same roads.”
The court recognized that local police resources might be insufficient for providing adequate protection to municipal staff during enforcement actions. Justice Gadkari suggested involving SRPF personnel to ensure BMC officials can perform their duties effectively. The state has yet to respond to this recommendation, though its counsel indicated a willingness to assist.
Justice Gadkari encouraged the BMC counsel to explore the streets after court hours, remarking on the prevalent hawking issue, which even affects parking for advocates who pay for it.
In response to the BMC’s claim of issuing licenses to hawkers in designated zones, Justice Gadkari questioned whether this meant no illegal hawkers operated there and inquired about the new hawkers appearing daily. The BMC again cited the Supreme Court’s stay on the Town Vending Committee (TVC) election results. The bench countered that the TVC’s constitution could not be blamed for all issues, stating, “This problem has societal implications that must not be overlooked.”
