Navi Mumbai Municipal Corpn. & Ors. Vs. Navi Mumbai Hawkers & Workers’ Union, NERUL & Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1576 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8194/2000)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8194/2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.2000 in CA No. 6250/99 in WP No. 324/99 of the High Court of Bombay)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8194/2000)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8194/2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.2000 in CA No. 6250/99 in WP No. 324/99 of the High Court of Bombay)
Petitioner: Navi Mumbai Municipal Corpn. & Ors.
Respondent: Navi Mumbai Hawkers & Workers’ Union, NERUL & Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1576 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8194/2000)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8194/2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.2000 in CA No. 6250/99 in WP No. 324/99 of the High Court of Bombay)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8194/2000)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8194/2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.2000 in CA No. 6250/99 in WP No. 324/99 of the High Court of Bombay)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 26, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate,
Ms. S.S. Shinde, Mr. S.V. Kharde, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Ms. S.S. Shinde, Mr. S.V. Kharde, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate, Mr. P.R. Chandrachud, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Mr. S.V. Deshpande, Advo-cates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 136 – Hawking in Mumbai – High Court, in a clarificatory order, allowing hawkers to put covers to beat sun or rain – Corporation, earlier directed to give specified pitches – Also clarified that allotment of specified pitches would not give a permanent right – Appeal against such order. Held that there is no need to interfere when order is clear. Appeal dismissed. (Para 8)
Cases Reffered:
1. Sodam Singh & etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Anr. etc. (JT 1989 (3) SC 553) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior Counsel for the appell-ants and Mr.Gopal Subramanium, learned senior Counsel for the respondents.
2. Leave is granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated March 9, 2000 in Civil Application No. 6256 of 1999 in Writ Petition No. 324 of 1999.
4. It appears that to give effect to the directions of this Court in Sodam Singh & etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Anr. etc. (JT 1989 (3) SC 553), the parties have agreed on certain terms which are incorporated in the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 324/1999 on February 1, 1999. The High Court, inter alia, directed :
“Now respondent no. 2 is directed to accommodate these hawkers in the newly set up hawking zones in the respective areas by giving an area of 4 x 6 feet for positioning the person plus his goods on payment of licence fee of Rs. 66 per month. Calculated at the rate of Rs. 30 per month for an area upto 1 square meter for every additional 01.00 sq. meter Rs. 3/-.”
5. Having been unsuccessful in contempt proceedings against the appellants, the respondents moved the High Court for clarifica-tion of the said order which was clarified by the impugned order. Para 4 of the impugned order which is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows :
“In our opinion, the order of the Division Bench clearly contem-plates that the concerned hawkers should be allotted demarcated pitches of an area of 4′ x 6′ for displaying their goods or a bench with a cover to beat the sun or rain. In any event, the interpretation put by the 2nd respondent corporation is wholly impracticable and unworkable. If the hawkers are not given speci-fied pitches, it will lead to chaos and there will be fights amongst the hawkers for occupying suitable pitches. We may hasten to add that the allotment of specified pitch does not mean that the concerned hawker would acquire any right in respect of the pitch allotted to him. It will be open for the 2nd respondent to shift the concerned hawker to any other hawking zone. We may also make it clear that the hawkers will not be entitled to erect the permanent structure/fixture on the pitch allotted to them. If any such permanent structure/fixture is erected, it will be open for the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action. The 2nd respondent shall make the allotment of the specified pitches to the hawkers in question within eight weeks.”
6. Mr. R.F. Nariman contends that while passing the impugned order the High Court has not taken note of the following portion in the order dated February 1, 1999 :-
“The aforesaid order will not be construed as authorising hawkers to set up shop premises or claim permanency at any particular place, which may be allotted for hawking…..”
7. The learned Counsel argues that the impugned order of the High Court has conferred on the respondents right of permanency which was neither contemplated in the order of the High Court dated February 1, 1999 nor can such a permanency be granted on princi-ple.
8. The appellants established hawking zones in which the respond-ents are to occupy pitches as licensees. A perusal of para 4 of the order, quoted above, shows that the clarification given by the High Court does not suffer from any illegality. In our view, that is the correct clarification of the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 324/99 referred to above. It is only to prevent any arbitrary exercise of power by the appellants by ordering change of pitches that the High Court observed “It will be open for the 2nd respondent to shift the concerned hawker to any other hawking zone”. However, the High Court has made it abundantly clear that the allotment of the specified pitches does not mean that the hawkers would acquire any right of permanency in the pitches allotted to them. In view of this and the further observation of the High Court that the hawkers will not be enti-tled to erect permanent structure on pitches allotted to them and that if any such permanent structure is erected it will be open to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action. We are not inclined to interfere with order under challenge. We are, therefore, satisfied that no right of permanency is granted to the hawkers nor their character as licensee has been altered by the High Court.
9. For the above reasons, the appeal is without any merit; it is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
1. Heard Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior Counsel for the appell-ants and Mr.Gopal Subramanium, learned senior Counsel for the respondents.
2. Leave is granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated March 9, 2000 in Civil Application No. 6256 of 1999 in Writ Petition No. 324 of 1999.
4. It appears that to give effect to the directions of this Court in Sodam Singh & etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Anr. etc. (JT 1989 (3) SC 553), the parties have agreed on certain terms which are incorporated in the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 324/1999 on February 1, 1999. The High Court, inter alia, directed :
“Now respondent no. 2 is directed to accommodate these hawkers in the newly set up hawking zones in the respective areas by giving an area of 4 x 6 feet for positioning the person plus his goods on payment of licence fee of Rs. 66 per month. Calculated at the rate of Rs. 30 per month for an area upto 1 square meter for every additional 01.00 sq. meter Rs. 3/-.”
5. Having been unsuccessful in contempt proceedings against the appellants, the respondents moved the High Court for clarifica-tion of the said order which was clarified by the impugned order. Para 4 of the impugned order which is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows :
“In our opinion, the order of the Division Bench clearly contem-plates that the concerned hawkers should be allotted demarcated pitches of an area of 4′ x 6′ for displaying their goods or a bench with a cover to beat the sun or rain. In any event, the interpretation put by the 2nd respondent corporation is wholly impracticable and unworkable. If the hawkers are not given speci-fied pitches, it will lead to chaos and there will be fights amongst the hawkers for occupying suitable pitches. We may hasten to add that the allotment of specified pitch does not mean that the concerned hawker would acquire any right in respect of the pitch allotted to him. It will be open for the 2nd respondent to shift the concerned hawker to any other hawking zone. We may also make it clear that the hawkers will not be entitled to erect the permanent structure/fixture on the pitch allotted to them. If any such permanent structure/fixture is erected, it will be open for the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action. The 2nd respondent shall make the allotment of the specified pitches to the hawkers in question within eight weeks.”
6. Mr. R.F. Nariman contends that while passing the impugned order the High Court has not taken note of the following portion in the order dated February 1, 1999 :-
“The aforesaid order will not be construed as authorising hawkers to set up shop premises or claim permanency at any particular place, which may be allotted for hawking…..”
7. The learned Counsel argues that the impugned order of the High Court has conferred on the respondents right of permanency which was neither contemplated in the order of the High Court dated February 1, 1999 nor can such a permanency be granted on princi-ple.
8. The appellants established hawking zones in which the respond-ents are to occupy pitches as licensees. A perusal of para 4 of the order, quoted above, shows that the clarification given by the High Court does not suffer from any illegality. In our view, that is the correct clarification of the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 324/99 referred to above. It is only to prevent any arbitrary exercise of power by the appellants by ordering change of pitches that the High Court observed “It will be open for the 2nd respondent to shift the concerned hawker to any other hawking zone”. However, the High Court has made it abundantly clear that the allotment of the specified pitches does not mean that the hawkers would acquire any right of permanency in the pitches allotted to them. In view of this and the further observation of the High Court that the hawkers will not be enti-tled to erect permanent structure on pitches allotted to them and that if any such permanent structure is erected it will be open to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action. We are not inclined to interfere with order under challenge. We are, therefore, satisfied that no right of permanency is granted to the hawkers nor their character as licensee has been altered by the High Court.
9. For the above reasons, the appeal is without any merit; it is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
