Bombay High Court
SMT. SARASWATI PRAYAGDIN VARMA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the petitioners must address their grievance before the Town Vending Committee and therefore no judicial relief is granted.
Summary
The petitioners, street vendors licensed for Vending Zone No. 216 in Pune, challenged the Pune Municipal Corporation's attempt to remove their carts during footpath repairs, invoking protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The corporation relied on Section 231 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and a resolution approved by the Town Vending Committee (TVC) that provided alternative arrangements for affected vendors. The court examined whether the corporation could lawfully take adverse action without first addressing the vendors' rights under the 2014 Act and the TVC's rehabilitation scheme. It observed that the vendors retain the right to vend after obtaining a proper license and that any grievance must be pursued before the TVC or through individual representation. Consequently, the court declined to intervene, leaving the petitioners to seek relief through the TVC, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Can the municipal corporation remove street vendor carts under Section 231 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act despite the vendors' protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014?
- Are the petitioners entitled to judicial relief for alleged adverse action, or must they first approach the Town Vending Committee as prescribed by the rehabilitation resolution?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- street vending
- municipal corporation
- vendor licenses
- rehabilitation
- Town Vending Committee
- Section 231
- protection of livelihood
Judgment
1/3 2 wp-12808-16.odt
Salgaonkar
MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2026.06.18 18:44:51 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12808 OF 2016
Smt.Saraswati Prayagdin Varma & .. Petitioners
Ors.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
…
Mr.Siddhesh Pilankar with Mr.Nitesh Omprakash Gupta for
the Petitioner Nos.1, 3 to 17.
Ms.P.N. Diwan, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent.
Mr.Rishikesh M. Pethe for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026
...
P.C:-
1. The Petitioners are the vendors engaged in street
vending, being in possession of vendor licenses for Vending
Zone No. 216 at Kamala Nehru Park, Pune.
The Petitioners, in the background that the Pune
Municipal Corporation has invited a tender for carrying out
repairs and blocking on footpath vide its advertisement issued
in 2013, apprehended an action under Section 231 of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
Feeling aggrieved by the act of the of@cers of the
Municipal Corporation visiting the site, with an attempt to
remove the vendor carts, the Petitioners approached the Court
2/3 2 wp-12808-16.odt
seeking direction to decide their representation. The primary
ground raised in the representation is not taking any adverse
action against the Petitioners, as they stood protected by The
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of
Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short, “The Act of 2014”).
3. The learned counsel representing the Corporation/
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, has invited our attention to a
Resolution passed by the Corporation in regards to the subject
of rehabilitation of vendors, after necessary approval is sought
from the Town Vending Committee (“TVC”).
In the said Resolution it is evident that the vendors, who
were affected on account of the footpath being vacated, were
provided an alternative arrangement and their vending was
permitted within the speci@ed timelines in the area speci@ed
therein.
4. In any case, we really wonder, whether the situation
continues to remain the same after lapse of a decade. However,
if the Petitioners have any grievance in regards to their
vending activity, and since they are entitled to carry out the
vending activity after obtaining proper license from the
Corporation and their rights stand protected under the Act of
2014 and the scheme formulated by the State of Maharashtra,
the Petitioners are at liberty to @le appropriate representation
to TVC, which is now constituted or make individual grievance,
if they are aggrieved as regards any future action, which
adversely affects them.
3/3 2 wp-12808-16.odt
Leaving the aforesaid liberty open, the Petition stands
disposed of.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Checking your session…