The Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay on the eviction of hawkers from Colaba Causeway, Mumbai, providing immediate relief to the vendors under threat of displacement. The order, delivered by Justice Abhay Oka, ensures that “they shall not be evicted without leave of this court,” according to a document obtained by Hindustan Times.
This decision came after the Colaba Causeway Tourism Hawkers’ Stall Union filed a special leave petition (SLP) challenging a previous judgment by the High Court of Maharashtra. The High Court had ruled against the hawkers, who then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. The dispute involves 253 hawkers, though the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) recognizes only 76 as licensed stall owners.
The union argues that the High Court dismissed their petition without fully considering the merits of their case or the implications of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act of 2014, which, although implemented by the central government, has not been notified by the state government. According to the union, a 2014 survey identified 253 vendors as eligible under the Act, a point of contention with the BMC’s current stance.
Shaikh, a representative of the hawkers, stated that they are prepared to address any issues raised by local residents and comply with stall designs planned by MLA Rahul Narwekar, emphasizing their commitment to not encroach on pedestrian spaces.
In response to the Supreme Court’s stay, the Clean Heritage Colaba Residents’ Association (CHCRA) announced plans to file an intervention plea. Advocate Prerak Choudhary, representing CHCRA, expressed concern about the use of pavements for vending, which he argued compromises the rights of pedestrians. “With due respect to street vendors’ right to earn a livelihood, there has to be some reasonable restriction upon such rights,” Choudhary argued, adding that the Bombay High Court had previously issued commendable orders addressing this issue.
Choudhary further highlighted that the welfare of the public should be the supreme law, a principle that he feels should guide the resolution of this dispute. He plans to ensure that the views of local residents and the broader public are considered in the Supreme Court’s final decision on the matter.
