The division bench of Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice S H Kapadia on Monday held that the model code of conduct did not apply to the implementation of the hawking and non-hawking zones in the city and gave the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) two weeks time, till August 2, to finalise the scheme.The order came after the state advocate general C J Sawant poured over the rules governing the model code of conduct once the elections are declared. He then told the division bench that the implementation of the hawking zones and non-hawking zones would affect a large number of people. ``There are more than a lakh of hawkers in the city and more than that is the number of residents who are unhappy with the hawking zones. The implementation of the hawking zones, one way or the other will affect the ruling party,'' he submitted.However, counsel for one of the residents' organisation, Rafique Dada argued that the hawking zones did not run foul of the model code of conduct since they were beingimplemented under the orders of the Supreme Court judgement of 1985.BMC counsel, M B Rao, submitted that the scheme had been finalised and presented to the general body of the BMC, but the house was not able to take it up for consideration since the Election Commission had declared the dates of the Parliamentary elections and the model code of conduct came into play. However, when asked by the Chief Justice if the records on not taking up the the resolution said it so explicitly, Rao stated that it was not so. The Chief Justice then, in his order, recorded that the BMC in pursuance of the SC judgement and the various orders of the Bombay High Court had stated that it would finalise the scheme in November 1998 which it had been unable to do, despite the orders. The bench then declared that the model code of conduct did not have any application on the implementation of the hawking zones and directed that the civic corporation finalise the scheme without any further delay by August 2.Interim relieffor taximenn THE division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N Srikrishna today granted an interim relief to the Mumbai Taximen's Union by extending a state government's notification on limiting the number of taxi permits, by six months. Taximen can thus, get their taxi permits, if they have paid the full amount for the vehicle by March 22 and if they are able to produce their vehicle before the registration authorities by October 29, 1999.The taximen's union had challenged the state government notification of March 22, 1999 where the state had directed the Regional Transport and state transport authorities to register and grant permits to taxis and autorickshaws, only if they were able to get their vehicles by April 29, 1999. For those who were unable to do so, even if they had letters of intent (LOIs) from the state, the LOIs were to be cancelled.The state has not been giving LOIs or permits for taxis and autorickshaws since November 26, 1997 when the last notification on it wasissued. The March notification further limiting the number of taxi and rickshaw permits states that the government's decision was prompted by the increasing vehicular pollution and traffic congestion in cities like Mumbai, Thane, Nagpur, Pune, Solapur, and others. The union today challenged the March notification since they argued that a large number of taximen had already applied for loans against the LOIs issued to them by the state. Many of these loans were already sanctioned and disbursed. Since companies take six to eight months to deliver the vehicles, they had been unable to obtain their cabs. The petitioners also argued that with a large number of cabs converting to CNG (compressed natural gas), vehicular pollution would decrease.Counsel for the union Gopal Hegde argued that the rule of estoppel should apply to the notification since the persons who were granted LOIs were given 36 months to get their vehicles. He also argued that the state government could not take a unilateral decision on limitingthe number of vehicles and needed the Central government's concurrence on it. However, state government pleader R V Govilkar countered that the state had full powers to do so. The petition was then admitted by the bench and the interim reliefs granted.
