Holding

The provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 relating to hawker licensing and the scheme of hawking zones are reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) and are constitutionally valid.

Summary

The Bombay Hawkers' Union and several hawkers filed writ petitions under Article 32 challenging sections 313, 313‑A, 314(3) and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, alleging that the provisions gave the municipal authorities unfettered power to refuse licences and remove goods without a hearing, thereby violating the constitutional right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court examined the scheme proposed by the Municipal Commissioner for creating hawking and non‑hawking zones and the eight conditions attached to licences, assessing whether they amounted to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. It held that the Act’s provisions are a valid exercise of the State’s power to impose reasonable restrictions on trade to prevent nuisance, obstruction of traffic and public health hazards. The Court upheld most of the conditions, modifying clauses (ii) and (viii), struck down clause (v) as unreasonable, and altered the permitted business hours in clause (vi). Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner to finalize the licensing scheme in accordance with the suggested modifications and dismissed the writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether sections 313, 313‑A, 314(3) and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 infringe the right to carry on trade guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Whether the scheme of licensing hawkers and demarcating hawking zones constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g).
Whether specific conditions of the licensing scheme, particularly the prohibition on selling cooked food and the prescribed business hours, are constitutionally valid.
Whether the power to grant licences is discretionary coupled with a duty and must be exercised with due regard to public interest.
Whether hawkers are entitled to a hearing before their licences are refused or goods removed.

Legislation cited

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888s. 313, s. 313-A, s. 314(3), s. 497
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Subjects

Article 19(1)(g)Right to tradeHawker licensingReasonable restrictionMunicipal lawPublic nuisanceLicensing schemeHawking zonesConstitutional lawBombay Municipal Corporation Act

Judgment

849

BOMBAY HAWKERS' UNION AND ORS.
A

BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
B
July 3, 1985.

[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.P. SBN, JJ.)

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 sections 313, 313-A, 314(3) and C
497, whether violative of Article 19(/) (g) of the Constitution-Right to carry on
trade, business or calling by hawkers on footpaths and on pubiic streets-Merits
and feasibility of a scheme for the licencing of hawkers in Greater Bott1bay by
cr<ating hawking zones by the Municipal Commissioner, dated 23 Noverr;ber,
1983-Modalities to be adopted for the purpose of hawking and non-hawking
zgnes.
D
There are about 1,S0,000 hawkers in the city of Bombay, one sixth of
them being women. Broadly, there are three types of hawkers-those who have
four-wheeled carts, those squat on the streets numbering about 1,20,000 and the
rest who have stalls to enable them to staad and sell their wares. They sell
almost everything under the sun, from hairpins to hot food and vegetables to
vides cassettes. They hawk their wares standing or squatting on public streets, E
which constitutes a serious impediment to the free movement of pedestrian and
vehicul a traffic. Some of the streets in Bombay are so incredibly flooded with
merchandise sold by hawkers that it is impossible for the pedestrians to walk
on those streets The Bombay Municipa! Corporation has been making her·
culean efforts to clear the streets of these and other obstructions but, those
efforts have met with intense opposition from several quarters.
F
The Bombay Hawker's Union, a trade which has a large number of haw·
kers on its membership roll and which has been unsuccessfully negotiating with
the Municipal authorities for the creation of a hawker"s zone and for granting
adequate number of licences to hawkers to enable th~ru to carry on their trade
and business, along with petitioner No 2 the President of the Bombay Hawker's
Union and incidently a corpora tor has challenged the Constitutional validity of G
the provisions of sections 31~. 313~A, 314(3) and 497 of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 on the ground that they confer upon the respondents
unguided power to refuse to grant or renew licences for hawking and to remove
the goods without affording to the hawkers an opportunity to be heard. There
writ petitions were flied by those who carry on the business of hawking, conten~
ding that they have a fundarnental right to carry on their trade business or H
calling, with which the respondents are unlawfully interfering by arbitrarily
refusing to grant or renew licences for hawking, which renders them liable to be
removed along with their goods, from places where they to their business.
8SO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) SUPPL. s.c.a..

During the pendency of the writ petition, on the intervention of the Court, the
A Municipal Corporation formulated a scheme for the Jicencing of bawkers in
Greater Bombay by creating hawking zones. Preferring to adopt "non liquct"
as tO the validity of the challenge by the petitioners to certain provisions of tht
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, the Court considered the merits and
feasibility of the scheme and suggested modalities to be adopted by tht
Corporation in so far as hawking and non-hawkina zones are concerned.
B
Disposing off the writ petitions, the Court,

HELD: 1.1 The right conferred by Article 19il) (g) of the Conatltution
to carry on any trade or business is subject to the provisions of clause (b) of
that Article, which provides that nothing in sub-clause (g) of Article 19(1) shall
c affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the
State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public.
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-
clause. Here, the affidavits fl.Jed on behalf of the respondent in unmistakable
terms show that the impugned provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corpora-
tion Act are in the nature of reasonable restrictions, in the interests of the
general pubJic, on the exercise of the right of hawkers to carry on their trade or
D business. [855 C-D)

1.2 No ono has any right to do his or her trade or business so as to
cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to the oth~r members of the public.
Public streets, by their very nomenclature and definition, are meant for the use
of the general public. They are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of private
trade or business. If i1awkers were to be conceded the right claimed by them,
E they could hold the society to ransom by SQ'Jatting on the centre of busy
thoroughfares, thereby paralysing all civic life. Indeed, that is what some of
them have done in some parts of the city. They have made it impos1ible for the
pcdestrain:-. to walk on footpaths or C\Cn on the streets properly so called.
(855 E·G)

2.1 As to the merits and feasibility of the scheme formulated for the
F licencing of hawkers in Greater Bombay by creating hawking zones formulated
by the Municipal Commissioner in letter No. MDG/2418 dated 30th
September, 1983, and in particular the eight conditions subject to wpich tbt
Commissioner proposes to grant licences to the hawkers. no exception can be
taken to conditions (i), Iii), (iii), (Iv), (vii) and (viii) except that conditions (ii)
and (viii) require a little modific:ttion. The first part of condition (ii) beginning
G with the words .. they should not put up any stall'' and ending with the words
"'nor should they hawk on handcarts'' may stand. But, the second part of that
condition should not be construed to mean that the hawkers will not be entitled
even to protect their wares against the sun, rain, wind and so on, by spreading
a cloth, plastic sheet, chaddar, tarpaulin etc. The object of that condition is to
ensure that no construction is put up acd no handcarts are used. In so far as
H condition No. (viii) is c0ncerned, all that it should be understood to mean is
that the fact that a daily fee is charged will not confer upon the hawker tht
ri8ht to do his business at any particular place That is because, the daily fee
i!! a kind of liceni;e fe~ to do businees it is n~t a fe(I i;harged fQr doing business
HAWKER'S UNION V. MUNICIPAL CORPN. 851

at any particular place. The Commissioner will, therefore, be free to impose
conditions (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii) end (viii) while granting licences to the A
hawkers in the Hawking Zones, after making the necessary clarifications in
conditions (ii) and (viii). [859 GH·H 860 A·CJ
/

2.2 Condition (v) is an unreasonable restriction on the hawkers• right to
carry on their trade or business. There are several working families in Bombay,
belonging to different strata of society, which depend upon the food supplied B
by hawkers. The hawkers cannot be d.-:nied the right to sell cooked food, cut
fruits and the like. That will, of course, not confer upon them the licence to
sell adulterated or unhygienic food. They shall have to comply, like any other
vendor of food, with the Municipal licencing regulations and the provisions of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (860 C-DJ

2.3 The hours of business mentioned in condition (vi) should be from
c
7 A.M. to P.M. instead of 7 A.M. to 9 P.M. In cities like Bombay, nights are
quite young at 10 P.M.(860 D·E]

3. In so far as Hawking and non-hawking Zones arc concerned, the
Commiasionor should adopt the following modalities :- D
(a) As far as possible, there should be one Hawking Zone for every two
contiguous municipal wards in Greater Bombay.

(b) The Non-Hawking Zones may be fixed by the Municipal
Commissioner in his discretion, in consultation with the Bombay Municipal
Corporation.
E

(c) In areas other than the Non-Hawking Zones, licences should t.e
granted to the hawkers to do their business on payment of the prescribed fee.
That will be without prejudice to the right of the Commissioner to extend the
limits of the non~Hawking Zones in the interests of public health, sanitation,
1afety, public convenience and the like.

(d) Hawking licences should not be refused in the Hawking Zones
except for good reasons. The discretion not to grant a hawking licence in the
Haking Zones should be eXercised by the Commissioner reasonably and in
public interest.
G
(e) In future, before making any alteration in the scheme the Commis-
sioner should take into confidence all public interests, including the hawkers,
the Commissioner of Police and representative associations of the public such
as the one which appeared before us. Hawkers have the; right to do their
business, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. ff
The Police Commissioner is in the best position to Speak about the law and
order problem as well as the traffic hazards created by street trading. The
general public has a stake in showing how and why the hawking trade should
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPPL. s.c.R.

be regulated. The power conferred upon the Comissioner by section 313-A of
A the Act to grant licences to hawkers is in the nature of a discretion coupled
with a duty. It is, therefore, essential that the said power should be exercised
by consulting all concerned interests and guided by considerations of what is in
the interests of the general public. The scheme framed by the Commissioner
will have a biodiog effect on all concerned. [860 E-H,861A-D]

B ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 5602-5605 of
1983

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

c Miss Indira Joi Singh and Miss Kamini laiswa/ for the
Petitioners.

K. K. Singhvi, K. K. · Venugopa/, D.N. Mishra, Karad~kar, M.
N. Shroff. Ms. Manik Karanjawa/a and S. Manik Karanjawala for the
D Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHANDRACHUD, C J. : These writ petitions are filed by and on
E behalf of a large number of hawkers who carry on the trade of
hawking their wares in Greater Bombay. They sell almost everything
under the sun, from hairpins to hot food and vegetables to video
cassettes. They hawk t:i:ir ware; standing or squatting on public
streets, which constitutes a serious impediment to the free movement
of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Standing, of course, is safer than
F squatting because, it ensures easy mobility at the sight of Municipal
or police officers. Mobile hawkers decorated with a hundred ball pens,
like war-medals, is quite a common sight in Bombay. Constraints
of modern times have created ingenious methods of trading. Some of
the streets in Bombay are so incredibly flooded with merchandise
G sold by hawkers that it is impossible for the pedestrians to walk on
those streets. The Bombay Municipal Corporation has been making
herculean efforts to clear the streets of these and other obstructions
but, those efforts have met with intense opposition from several
quarters, not unexpectedly, even from those who wield considerable
H political influence. In the ultimale analysis, it is the ballot-box that
matters. This tug-of-war or the game of hide-and-seek between the
Corporation and the hawkers led recently to a serious incident in
which an officer of the CorporMiqn en!laged in the task of
lhWKBRS;S UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Chandrachud, C.J.) 853

demolishing unauthorised constructions put up on public streets, was
shot at. He survived but, such is the magnitude of the problem. A

Petitoner I is the Bombay Hawkers' Union, a Trade union
which has a large number of hawkers on its membership roll. It
has been negotiating with the Municipal authorities for the creation
of a hawkers' zone and for granting adequate number of licences to B
hawkers to enable them to carry on their trade and business. There
are about I, 50, 000 hawkers in the city of Bombay, I /6th of them
being women. Broadly, there are three types of hawkers - those
who have four-wheeled carts, those who squat on the streets
and those who have stalls. The largest amongst these are
the squatting .hawkers who number about 1,20,000. Petitioner 2
c
is the Persident of the Bombay Hawkers' Union and is also
a Corporator. The other three petitioners carry on the business
of hawking.

Respondent I is the Municipal Corporation of Greater D
Bombay, respondent 2 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent 3 is
the Municipal Commissioner, while re;pondent 4 is the Commis-
sioner of police.

The contention of the petitioners is that they have a funda- E
mental right to carry on their trade, business or calling and that
the respondents are unlawfully interfering with that right. The
petitioners complain that respondents I to 3 arbitrarily refuse to
grant or renew licences for hawking, which renders the hawkers
liable to be removed along with their goods, from places where they
do their business. By these writ petitions, the petitioners ask for a
F
declaration that the provisions of sections 313, 313-A, 314 (3) and
497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, J 888 are void since,
they confer upon the respondents an arbitrary and unguided power
to refuse to grant or renew licences for hawking and to remove the
goods without affording to the hawkers an opportunity to be G
heard.

These writ petitions were heard from time to time wh,n, several
suggestions were made and possibilities explored for evolving a H
staisfactory solution to the problems faced by both the sides. It was
eventually decided and, a consensus emerged between the parties
that the Municipal Commissioner should frame a scheme for regulat-
8S4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (198Sj SUPPL. S.C.R,

ing the grant of licences to hawkers and for creating hawkers' zones
wherever necessary. In pursuance of thi• understanding, several
meetings were i)eld between the officers of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation and, ~e members of the Hawkers' Committee of which
the Mayor of .Qllmbay was the Chairman. By bis letter dated
May 6, 1983 the Municipal Commissioner proposed a scheme,
which is annexed as Exhibit I to the affidavit of Digambar Anant
B
Padgaonkar, who is the Superintendent of Licences in the Municipal
Corporation. The Hawkers' union showed hardly any response to the
proposed scheme and it took no decision thereon. When these writ
petitions come up for hearing before this Court on August 5, 1983,
the following order was passed :
c
"If the members of the Hawkers' Committee do not
come to any decision by consensus, the Commissioner of
Bombay Municipal Corporation will be free to frame a
scheme. We are informed by Mr. Singhvi that the next
D meeting is fixed on 12th August 1983. The scheme shall
be framed as expeditiously as possible thereafter."

The meeting was eventually held on September 12, 1983 when the
Hawkers' Committee discussed the proposals made by the Municipal
Commissioner. No agreement could be reached in that meeting
E since, the Hawkers' union expressed reservations about some terms
of the scheme.
..
In deference to the suggestions of the Hawkers' Committee,
the Municipal Commissioner proposed a modified scheme by his
p letter dated September 30, 1983. The Hawkers' Committee met
under the chairmanship of the Mayor of Bombay, Shri Manmohan
Singh Bedi, and recommended to the Croportation that the Commis-
sioner may proceed to formulate a final scheme for regulating hawk·
ing, on the lines suggested by him in bis letter dated September 30,
1983. The 'Fifth and Final Report' of the Hawkers' Committee dated
G October 15, 1983 is Exhibit III to the letter addressed by the
Municipal Commissioner to the 1\fayor of Bombay, which is at
Exhibit I.

H On November 23, 1983 an application for directions was filed
by the petitioners, asking specifically that the Municipal Commis-
sioner be asked to formulate a scheme for the licensing of hawkers
in Greater Bombay by creating hawking zones. That application
1
BA'lt'KBR S UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Chandrachud, C.J.) 855

. was heard by us along with the writ petitions, when the parties
argued upon the merits and demerits of the scheme proposed by
the Municipll Commissioner. After we heard counsel for the
respective parties for some time, it was decided that we will pass
orders on the basis of the scheme framed by the Commissioner with
such modifications as we consider proper and necessary.
B
In view of the fact that we are primarily concerned to consider
the merits an feasibility of the scheme proposed by the Municipal
Commissioner, it is necessary to consider the validity of the challenge
made by the petitioners to certain provisions of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act. We would, however, like to add that
there.is no substance in that challenge because, the right conferred c
by Article 19 (I) (g) of the Constitution to carry on any trade or
business is subject to the provisions of clause (b) of that Article,
which provides that nothing in sub-clause (g) of Article 19 (I) shall
affect the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes, or
prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interests D
of the general public, reaso.1able restrictions on the exercise of the
right conferred by the oaid sub-clause. The affidavits filed on behalf
of the respondents show in unmistakable terms tbat the impugned
provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act are in the
nature of reasooable restrictions, in the interests of the general
public, on the exercise of the right of hawkers to carry on their E
trade or business. No one has any right to do his or her trade or
business so as to cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to the
other members Qf the public. Public Streets, by their very
nomenclature and definition, are meant for the use of the general
public. They are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of private F
trade or business. If hawkers were to be conceded the right claimed
by them, they could hold the society to ransom by squalling on the
centre of busy thoroughfares, thereby paralysing all civic life. Indeed,
that is what some of them have done in some parts of the city. They

... have made it impossible for the pede,trians to walk on footpaths or
even the streets properly so called . G

In order to give the background and a full picture of the
recommendations made by the Commissioner, it would be desirable
to reproduce the Jetter of the Commissioner dated September 30, 1983 H
to the Mayor of Bombay, who was the Chairman dfthe Hawkers'
Committee. The Scheme proposed.by the Commissioner from part
of tha1 l~ter. That .Jetter reads as,f<?ll<?ws, :. ,•.
856 SUPREME COURT REl'oRTS [1985] SUPPL, S.C.R.

"No. MDG/2418
A
30th September, 1983

To
B
The Mayor of Bombay &
Chairman, Hawkers' Committee,
Corporation Hall,
Bombay-400001.
c
Sub:-Creation of Hawking Zones
in Greater Bombay.

D Dear Sir,

Kindly refer to my letter No. MDG/6638 dated 6th May
1983 on the abovementioned subject, of which you were kind enough
to circulate copies to the members of the Hawkers' Committee, and
E recall the subsequent discussions held in the meetings of the said
Committee wherein, inter alia, the proposals set out in that letter
were discussed threadbare.

"During the discussion, it was pointed out by some members,
F Shri Dharap in particular, that if, as proposed in my aforesaid letter
(dated 6th May 1983), 'No Hawking Zones or Areas' are identified
and declared as such, an impression would be automatically created
that the remaining Zones/areas/streets are 'Hawking Zones or Areas',
where hawking would be freely permissible. In this connection, as
G an analogy, it was pointed out that when the police declare certain
areas as 'No parking Areas', it automatically follows that parking is
permissible in the areas other than those declared as 'No parking
Areas'. An apprehension was, therefore, voiced that identification
or declaration of certain zones or areas as 'No Hawking Zones or
H Areas' may give rise to rampant hawking activity in the remaining
areas and a demand for issue of licences freely to hawkers "ho will
mushroom in those areas. This will, it was stated, defeat the main
purpose viz. that of proper regulation of hawkers and their activities.
itAWKBR;S UNION'· MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Chandrachud, C.J.) 857
I then clarified that it was never my intention that hawking should be
permitted freely in areas not covered by 'No Hawking Zoues/Areas', A
nor had I intended that additional hawking licences should be given
freely to hawkers to operate in such remaining areas. It was then
decided in the meeting of the Hawkers' Committee held on 13th
September 1983 that I should resubmit my proposal with suitable
clarifications/ modifications so as not to leave any room for a wrong B
impression that hawking will be permissible in a free and unchecked
manner in certain areas. Accordingly. I once again outline my
proposal in the paragraphs below.

"As per the provisions of Section 61(0) of the Bombay Munici· c
pal Corporation Act, the removal of obstructions and projections in
or upon streets, bridges and other public places is an obligatory
duty of the Corporation. The hawkers together with their stalls or
the obj~cts which they sell and which they exhibit in the stalls or on
the roads/pavements, constitute an obstruction/projection in or upon D
streets a,1d other public places. Their removal is, therefore, an
obligatory duty of the Corporation. Having regard to our resources,
human, physical and financial, it is, however, obvious that we will
not be able to fully discharge this duty and remove the obstructions/
projections caused by hawkers on every road, lane or pavement in
the entire City of Greater Bombay. We should, therefore, decide E
that within the constraints of our resources, we would concentrate on
the removal of such obstructions/projections on certain streets and
public places where the pedestrians or vehicular traffic is most intense

- and where any obstruction/projection on the street or pavement is
likely to cause great harm to public interest and cause nuisance. For
example, the roads leading from suburban Railway Stations to the
residential areas in the Suburbs or roacls in the Central Business
F

District in South Bombay connecting the Suburban Railway Stations
with the offices and other places of work as also certain arterial
roads on which major goods and public transport vehicles move,
could be considered as important roads and pavements where no G
hawkers shou)d be allowed to do their business. No doubt, at
present, on these roads/areas too, there are existing hawkers who were
given licences in the past but who now do constitute an obstruction
to the free and safe flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It will
be possible to remove these licensed hawkers by giving them alterna· u
tive sites.
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198SJ SUPPL. s.c.R.

"Thus, having regard to the resources of vehicles, staff etc. at
A our disposal, we could identify iu each Ward the streets/areas. were
intensive removal action agamst unauthorised hawkers should be
taken. This shall not, however, mean that hawking in other areas
will be freely permitted. In areas other than the areas identified from
time to time, having regard to the resources available and the
B dynamic situation, for intensive removal action, ir hawkers do their
hawking business without seriously affecting the vehicular and/or
pedestrian traffic or causing nuisance, they may be tolerated by
sufference and a daily fee at the rate of Rs. 3 par day from a male
hawker and at the rate of Rs. I per day from a female hawker may
be recovered, without prejudice to our right to remove them should
c the dynamic situation and the changed circumstances so demand
in future. It should be made explicitly clear at the back of the
receipt given for the fees recovered that the collection of the fee shall
not be deemed to confer any right whatsoever· on the hawker
concerned to do his/her hawking business at the site eoncern<d.
D
"The following restrictions/conditione shall be imposed on such
hawkers:-

(i) They should do their hawking business only on an area of
E I Mt. x I Mt. on the footpath wherever it exists or on the extreme
sides of the carriage way, in such a manner that the vehicular and
pedestrian traffic is not obstructed and access to shops and residences
is not blocked.

F (ii) They should not put up any stall or pla~e any table, stand
or such other thing or erect any type of structure whatsoever on the
-
pitch on which they are conducting their hawking business nor should
they hawk on handcarts. They should also not put up any cloth,
plastic sheet, chaddar, tarpaulin etc. as shelter.
G
(iii) They should not hawk within 100 metres from any place
of worship; holy shrine, educational institution and general hospital
and within the periphery of ISO metres from any Municipal or other
market.
H
(iv) They should not create any noise for attracting the public/
customers.
HAWKER;S UNION •• MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Chandrachud, C.J.) 859
(v) They should not hawk any cooked food articles, cut fruits
A
etc.

(vi) They should do their hawking business only between 7-00
A.M. and 9·00 P.M. on the day on which the prescribed daily fee is
recovered. In other words, payment of the prescribed daily fee shall
not be deemed to authorise them to do their hawking business B
beyond the aforesaid hours.

(vii) They should extend full co-operation to Municipal
conservancy staff for cleaning the streets and footpaths and also to
other Municipal staff for carrying out any Municipal work. They ,~
shouM also co-operate with other Government and public agencies
auch as the B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay Telephones, B.S E.S.
Ltd., etc. for laying cables or for doing any repair/development
work.

(viii) Recovery of prescribed daily fee shall not bestow on D
them any right whatsoever over the space used by them for hawking
on the day on which the fee is recovered.

"I would request you to immediately circulate copies of this
letter to all the members of the Hawkers' Committee and to convene E
a meeting of the Committee •ery urgently for consideration of the
proposals set out herein.

Yours faithfully,
F
Sd/·(D.M. Sukthankar)
Municipal Commissioner."

We have considered carefully the eight conditions mentioned
above, subject to which the Commissioner proposes to grant licences
the hawkers. No exception can be taken to conditions (i), (ii), (iii),
{iv), {vii) and (viii) except that conditions (ii) and (viii) require a
little clarification. The first part of condition (ii) beginning with the
words "They should not put up any stall" and ending with the H
words "nor should they hawk on handcarts" may stand. But, the
second part of that condition should not he construed to mean that
the hawkers will not be entitled even to protect their wares.tagainst
860 SUPREME CoURT REPORTS ii98SJ SUPPL. s.c.i..

A the sun, rain, wind and so on, by spreading a cloth, plastic sheet,
chaddar, tarpaulio etc. The object of that condition is to ensure
that no construction is put up and no handcarts are used. In so far
as condition No. (viii) is concerned, all that it should be understood
to mean is that the fact that a daily fee is charged will not
confer upon the Hawker the right to do his business at any
B particular place. That is because, the daily fee is a kind of license
fee to do business; it is not a fee charged for doing business
at any padticular place. The Commissioner will, therefore, be
free to impose conditions (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii) and (viii) while
granting licenses to the hawkers in the Hawking Zones, after making
the necessary clarifications in conditions (ii) and (viii). Condition. (v)
c is an unreasonable restriction on the hawkers' right to carry on their
trade or business and must be dropped. There are several working
families in Bombay, belonging to different strata of society, which
depend upon the food supplied by hawkers. We do not see any
valid reason why hawkers should not be allowed to sell cooked food,
D cut fruits and the like That will, of course, not confer upon them
the licence to sell adulterated or unhygienic food They shall have
to comply, like any other vendor of food, with the Municipal licens-
ing regulations and the provisions of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954. Lastly the hours of business mentioned in
Condition (vi) should be from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. instead of 7 A.M.
E to 9 P.M, In cities like Bombay, nights are quite young at IO p.m.

In so far as Hawking and Non-Hawking Zones are concerned,
the Commissioner should adopt the following modalities :

F (a) As far as possible, there should be one Hawking Zone for
every who contiguous municipal wards in Greater Bombay.

(b) The Non-Hawking Zones may be fixed by the Municipal
Commissioner in his discretion, in consultation with the Bombay
G Municipal Corporation.

(c) In areas other than the Non-Hawking Zones, licenses
should be granted to the hawkers to do their business on payment of
the prescribed fee. That will be without prejudice to the right of
H
the Commissioner to extend the limits of the Non-Hawking Zones in
the interests of public health, sanitation, safety, public convenience
and the like.
HAWKER'S UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Chandrachud, C.J.) 861

(d) Haw kill!; licences should not be refused in the Hawking
Zones except for good reasons. The discretion not to grant a A
hawking licence in the Hawking Zone should be exercised by the
Commissioner reasonably and in public interest.

(e) In future, before making any alteration in the Scheme, the 8
Commissioner should take into confidence all public interests, includ-
ing the hawkers, the Commissioner of Police and representative
associations of the public such as the one which appeared before us.
Hawkers have the right to do their business, subject to reasonable
restrictions in the interests of the general public. The Police Com-
missioner is in the best position to speak about the law and c
order problem as well as the traffic hazards created by street
trading. The general public has a stake in showing how
and why the hawking trade should be regulated. The power
conferred upon the Commissioner by section 313-A of the Act to
grant licences to hawkers is in the nature of a discretion coupled 0
with a duty. It is therefore essential that the said power should be
exercised by consulting all concerned interests and guided by con-
siderations of what is in the intersts of the general public. The
scheme framed by the Commissioner will have a binding effect on all
concerned.

In the result, we direct that the Municipal Commissioner will
proceed to frame the final Scheme on the lines suggested above, as
expeditiously e.s possible. There will be no order as to costs.

S.R. Petition1 disposed off.