VINOD PREMSINGH SONARversusTHE BRIHNMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THRU ASST. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, E-WARD BMC

                                                                                            903.WP.2815.2026.doc
        Digitally
        signed by
        ANANT
ANANT   KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
NAIK    Date:
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
        2026.09.30
        11:12:17
        +0530                         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 2815 OF 2026

                     Vinod Premsingh Sonar                                            ...Petitioner
                           Versus
                     The Brihnmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors.                    ...Respondents

                     Mr. Somnath Iyer for the Petitioner.
                     Ms K. H. Mastkar for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-BMC
                     Ms Rita Joshi, AGP (Through VC) for the Respondent No. 3-State.


                                           CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                                   ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                           DATE      : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                     P.C.:


                     1.      Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the

                     Respondents.


                     2.      The instant Writ Petition is preferred for the following substantive reliefs:


                             (A) Quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 28.06.2024
                             (Exh-F) the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 (Exh-H) and the
                             consequential demolition action carried out by the Respondents;
                             (B) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to reconstruct
                             and resume his vending stall at the original site, or in the alternative,
                             allot an equivalent vending site in the same or nearby area;
                             (C) Direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for issuance of
                             a vending certificate or allotment of a vending site in accordance with
                             the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
                             Regulation of Street Vending Act, 2014);


                     3.      At the outset, learned Counsel for Petitioner has placed reliance on Rule

                     3(2)(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (for short “the



                     AKN                                      1
                                                                    903.WP.2815.2026.doc


Disability Rules, 2017) which provides that no person with disability shall be

discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act

or omission is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim. He submits that

it is an admitted case that the Petitioner is suffering from a disability and

accordingly he has relied upon the Certificate of Disability. He submits that

initially the impugned Notice dated 28th June, 2024 has been passed in arbitrary

manner and later on in response to the said Impugned Notice an Order dated 21 st

March, 2025 was passed. This, in spite of the fact that the Petitioner was having

the disability, he was dispossessed and his shop was demolished.


4.      Learned Counsel for the Petitioner heavily relied upon Section 17 of the

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act,

2014 (for short “the Street Vendors Act of 2014”) which mandate the Respondent-

Authority to relocate or eviction of a street vendors. He submits that once he is

having the disability and the Respondents have already carried out the demolition

of his shop, it is incumbent upon the Respondent-Authority to ensure some

appropriate place be provided under the provisions of the Street Vendors Act of

2014.


5.      Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on the proviso to

Section 22(2)(d) of the Street Vendors Act of 2014, which provides that due

representation shall be given to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other

Backward Classes, minorities and persons with disabilities from amongst the

members representing street vendors.




AKN                                     2
                                                                    903.WP.2815.2026.doc


6.     Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondents resisted the reliefs and submits

that the Street Vendors Act of 2014 itself is a self contained Act. Nothing is

brought on record to indicate that the Petitioner was registered as a street vendor

and no such survey has been carried out to indicate the Petitioner was actually

doing business at the roadside. However, she fairly submits that in case there is any

policy and vending zone is already been earmarked, in that event, the case of the

Petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law.


7.     Considering the factual situation as emerged before us, we expect the

Competent Authority/Town Vending Committee under the Street Vendors Act of

2014 may consider the grievance of the Petitioner, examine the same to be

remedied in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from

the date of production of a certified copy of this Order, in case there is no other

legal impediment, certainly after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to all

stakeholders.


8.     With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is Disposed Of.


9.     Needless to state, we have not adverted to the merits of the matter and all

contentions of the parties are kept open.




          [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                         [CHIEF JUSTICE]




AKN                                    3