BOMBAY HAWKERS' UNION AND ORS. versus BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 03-07-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
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, 
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. 
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 
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 
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. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8SO 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) SUPPL. s.c.a.. 
During the pendency of the writ petition, on the intervention of the Court, the 
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. 
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 
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 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.