Why unlicensed hawkers allowed to obstruct sidewalks in no-hawking zones, High Court asks state govt, BMC
A division bench of Justice G S Patel and Justice S G Dige was hearing a petition by two shop owners Pankaj and Gopalkrishna Agarwal from Borivali (East) complaining that several unauthorised stalls have come up in front of their shop.
3 min read
On Monday, the bench told the authorities that it wanted an update on the policy for hawkers, who function outside hawking zones. (Representational/File) THE BOMBAY High Court on Monday sought to know from the state government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on the current policy about hawkers, who function outside hawking zones hampering pedestrian movement on street. The bench sought to know from the authorities why unlicensed hawkers are allowed to function, who obstruct sidewalks. It said that basic facilities be provided to disabled pedestrians.
A division bench of Justice G S Patel and Justice S G Dige was hearing a petition by two shop owners Pankaj and Gopalkrishna Agarwal from Borivali (East) complaining that several unauthorised stalls have come up in front of their shop. The plea said that on the petitioner’s complaint, the stalls were removed, but they had promptly come back, hence the plea. The bench in November 2022 noted that the petition raised a “much larger issue of consequence to the entire city and everywhere there is an obstruction of pavements and sidewalks impeding pedestrian movement”.
“Some of these obstructions are so-called official or authorised structures, including milk booths and even police chowkies,” the bench had observed, and wondered how planning authority can claim to want to expand roads for motorists but make no provisions for pedestrians and at the same time permit reduction of what little pedestrian space is left.
Thereafter, the lawyer representing BMC submitted that the concerned hawkers were evicted. However, the petitioners denied the same and said that was not the case. The bench then questioned the “planning approach” of the authorities and noted that it was aware that such “removals have a habit of returning at very short notice the moment” the moment petition will be disposed of.
Thereafter, the bench also initiated a suo motu PIL and said it will hear the same every month “to ensure that starting with this petition, this kind of encroachment on public pedestrian access ways, sidewalks and footpaths does not recur.” On Monday, the bench told the authorities that it wanted an update on the policy for hawkers, who function outside hawking zones.
“Because of obstructions, pedestrians come on the road and then that is not safe. Where a broad sidewalk is provided but then is obstructed there is a problem. Stalls put up by vendors. Why are they allowed to be there? There are police chowkies, bus stops we understand. We are not asking you to remove them. Some stalls are permanent and have licenses. But is there a policy for all this or is it on an ad-hoc basis?” the bench questioned.
“There has to be some regulation to remove these people. We want some regulation. At the same time, pedestrians should also follow rules. Basic provisions have to be provided for wheel-chaired persons. There have to be ramps,” the bench said. The bench posted further hearing in the matter to January 30.
You May Like
Photos
