1985 JTR(SC) 217
1985 AIR(SC) 1206 ; 1985 2 BomCR(SC) 326 ; 1985 2 CurCC(SC) 277 ; 1985 2 Scale 59 ; 1985 3 SCC 528 ; 1985 Supp1 SCR 849 ; 1986 1 UJ 427 ; 1985 KHC 667
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., A.P. SEN. J.
Bombay Hawkers Union and others, Petitioners
Versus
Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, Respondents.
Writ Pents. Nos. 5602-5605 of 1983, D/- 3-7-1985.
Act
Referred
:BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT : S.313, S.313(a), S.497, S.314(3)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32
(A) The challenged provisions under Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3), and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, were contested as conferring arbitrary and unguided discretion to refuse hawking licenses and remove goods without providing an opportunity to be heard, thereby potentially violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court examined these provisions in light of Article 19(1)(g), read with clause (6), which permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public, and held that the impugned sections do not per se negate such reasonableness when applied to regulate public streets, public health, safety, and traffic, provided the restrictions are not arbitrary and follow a fair, consultative, and non-discriminatory policy. The judgment emphasized that public streets are not meant for private trade but for general public use, and the states duty under Section 61(o) to remove obstructions must be balanced with regulated, non-arbitrary licensing framed through a transparent, participatory scheme.
(B) The core legal principles include: (i) the right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (6) in the interests of the general public; (ii) municipal authorities have a statutory obligation to remove obstructions from public streets under Section 61(o) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act; (iii) the exercise of licensing power under Sections 313-A and 314(3) must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and made after consultation with affected interests; (iv) hawking is permissible only in designated zones or areas, and a daily fee does not confer a right to continue hawking at a specific site; (v) conditions imposed on licenses must not unduly restrict the right to carry on trade, and conditions that prohibit the sale of cooked food or cut fruits without valid public health grounds are unreasonable; and (vi) the scheme for regulating hawking must balance public interest, traffic and safety concerns, and the livelihood of hawkers.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, comprising a trade union and individual hawkers, challenged the alleged arbitrary denial or non-renewal of hawking licenses by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the State of Maharashtra, the Municipal Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Police. The petitioners argued that these actions, governed by Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3), and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, resulted in the removal of their goods and impediments to their trade. The hawkers operate in various forms, including squatting, using handcarts, and maintaining stalls, with a significant presence on public streets causing traffic and pedestrian congestion. The dispute culminated in a scheme proposed by the Municipal Commissioner in 1983, which outlined conditions for licensing, designated hawking and non-hawking zones, and imposed restrictions to regulate hawking. The petitioners sought directions to frame a licensing scheme and declare the impugned provisions void.
Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged the complexity of regulating hawking in densely populated areas and the need to balance public interest, traffic safety, and the livelihoods of hawkers. It found that the impugned provisions are not inherently void if interpreted as imposing reasonable restrictions in the public interest, consistent with Article 19(1)(g) and clause (6). The Court accepted the Commissioners scheme with modifications, emphasizing that licensing power must be exercised after consulting all stakeholders, including hawkers, police, and public representatives, and that the scheme must be framed expeditiously. Conditions such as restricting hawking to specific zones, limiting the use of handcarts and structures, prohibiting certain locations, and regulating hours were deemed reasonable, subject to clarifications. The Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to frame a final scheme based on the proposed modifications and consultations.
Issues:
The primary issues were whether the provisions of Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3), and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act confer arbitrary power contrary to Article 19(1)(g); whether hawking can be regulated through designated zones and a licensing scheme; whether conditions imposed on licenses are reasonable; and whether a fair consultative process is followed in framing and modifying the scheme.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest under clause (6), and the challenged provisions do not offend the Constitution if interpreted and applied non-arbitrarily. It directed the Municipal Commissioner to frame a licensing scheme based on the proposed conditions, with necessary clarifications, after consulting all concerned interests, recognizing that public streets are for general use and hawking must be regulated to prevent nuisance, ensure safety, and balance competing interests.
Result:
The Court dismissed the petition to strike down the provisions and directed the Municipal Commissioner to expeditiously frame a final scheme for regulating hawking licenses, incorporating the clarified conditions and consultative process, without ordering costs.
(A) The challenged provisions under Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3), and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, were contested as conferring arbitrary and unguided discretion to refuse hawking licenses and remove goods without providing an opportunity to be heard, thereby potentially violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court examined these provisions in light of Article 19(1)(g), read with clause (6), which permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public, and held that the impugned sections do not per se negate such reasonableness when applied to regulate public streets, public health, safety, and traffic, provided the restrictions are not arbitrary and follow a fair, consultative, and non-discriminatory policy. The judgment emphasized that public streets are not meant for private trade but for general public use, and the states duty under Section 61(o) to remove obstructions must be balanced with regulated, non-arbitrary licensing framed through a transparent, participatory scheme.
(B) The core legal principles include: (i) the right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (6) in the interests of the general public; (ii) municipal authorities have a statutory obligation to remove obstructions from public streets under Section 61(o) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act; (iii) the exercise of licensing power under Sections 313-A and 314(3) must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and made after consultation with affected interests; (iv) hawking is permissible only in designated zones or areas, and a daily fee does not confer a right to continue hawking at a specific site; (v) conditions imposed on licenses must not unduly restrict the right to carry on trade, and conditions that prohibit the sale of cooked food or cut fruits without valid public health grounds are unreasonable; and (vi) the scheme for regulating hawking must balance public interest, traffic and safety concerns, and the livelihood of hawkers.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, comprising a trade union and individual hawkers, challenged the alleged arbitrary denial or non-renewal of hawking licenses by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the State of Maharashtra, the Municipal Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Police. The petitioners argued that these actions, governed by Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3), and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, resulted in the removal of their goods and impediments to their trade. The hawkers operate in various forms, including squatting, using handcarts, and maintaining stalls, with a significant presence on public streets causing traffic and pedestrian congestion. The dispute culminated in a scheme proposed by the Municipal Commissioner in 1983, which outlined conditions for licensing, designated hawking and non-hawking zones, and imposed restrictions to regulate hawking. The petitioners sought directions to frame a licensing scheme and declare the impugned provisions void.
Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged the complexity of regulating hawking in densely populated areas and the need to balance public interest, traffic safety, and the livelihoods of hawkers. It found that the impugned provisions are not inherently void if interpreted as imposing reasonable restrictions in the public interest, consistent with Article 19(1)(g) and clause (6). The Court accepted the Commissioners scheme with modifications, emphasizing that licensing power must be exercised after consulting all stakeholders, including hawkers, police, and public representatives, and that the scheme must be framed expeditiously. Conditions such as restricting hawking to specific zones, limiting the use of handcarts and structures, prohibiting certain locations, and regulating hours were deemed reasonable, subject to clarifications. The Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to frame a final scheme based on the proposed modifications and consultations.
Issues:
The primary issues were whether the provisions of Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3), and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act confer arbitrary power contrary to Article 19(1)(g); whether hawking can be regulated through designated zones and a licensing scheme; whether conditions imposed on licenses are reasonable; and whether a fair consultative process is followed in framing and modifying the scheme.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest under clause (6), and the challenged provisions do not offend the Constitution if interpreted and applied non-arbitrarily. It directed the Municipal Commissioner to frame a licensing scheme based on the proposed conditions, with necessary clarifications, after consulting all concerned interests, recognizing that public streets are for general use and hawking must be regulated to prevent nuisance, ensure safety, and balance competing interests.
Result:
The Court dismissed the petition to strike down the provisions and directed the Municipal Commissioner to expeditiously frame a final scheme for regulating hawking licenses, incorporating the clarified conditions and consultative process, without ordering costs.
D.N.Mishra, INDIRA JAISINGH, K.K.SINGHVI, K.K.VENUGOPAL, KAMINI JAISWAL, KARADHKAR, M.N.SHROFF, MANIK KARANJAVALA, S.MANIK KARANJAVALA
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- These writ petitions are filed by and on 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 their wares 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 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 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 political influence. In the ultimate analysis, it is the ballot-box that matters. This tug-of-war or the game of hide-and-seek between Corporation and the hawkers led recently to a serious incident in which an officer of the Corporation engaged in the task of demolishing unauthorised constructions put up on public streets, was shot at. He survived but such is the magnitude of the problem.
2. Petitioner 1 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 hawkers to enable them to carry on their trade and business. There are about 1,50,000 hawkers in the city of Bombay, 1/6th 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 is the President of the Bombay Hawkers Union and is also a Corporator. The other three petitioners carry on the business of hawking.
3. Respondent 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, respondent 2 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent 3 is the Municipal Commissioner, while respondent, 4 is the Commissioner of Police.
4. The contention of the petitioners is that they have a fundamental right. to carry on their trade, business or calling and that the respondents are unlawfully interfering with that right. The petitioners complain that respondents 1 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 declaration that the provisions of Ss. 313, 313-A, 314(3) and 497 of the Bombay, Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 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 heard.
5. These writ petitions were heard from time to time when, several suggestions were made and possibilities explored for evolving a satisfactory 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 regulating the grant of licences to hawkers and for creating hawkers zones wherever necessary. In pursuance of this understanding several meetings were held between the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and, the members of the Hawkers Committee of which the Mayor of Bombay was the Chairman. By his letter dated May 6, 1983 the Municipal Commissioner proposed a scheme, which is annexed as Exhibit I to the affidavit of Digambar Anant 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 came up for hearing before this Court on Aug. 5, 1983 the following order was passed :
"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 meeting is fixed on 12th Aug. 1983. The scheme shall be framed as expeditiously as possible thereafter."
The meeting was eventually held on Sept. 12, 1983 when the Hawkers Committee discussed the proposals made by the Municipal Commissioner. No, agreement could be reached in that meeting since, the Hawkers Union expressed reservations about some terms of the scheme.
6. In deference to the suggestions of the Hawkers Committee, the Municipal Commissioner proposed a modified scheme by his letter dated Sept 30, 1983. The Hawkers Committee met under the chairmanship of the Mayor of Bombay, Shri Manmohan Singh Bedi, and recommended to the Corporation that the Commissioner may proceed to formulate a final scheme for regulating hawking, on the lines suggested by him in his letter dated Sept. 30, 1983. The Fifth and final Report of the Hawkers Committee dated Oct. 15, 1983 is Exhibit III to the letter addressed by the Municipal Commissioner to the Mayor of Bombay, which is at Exhibit I.
7. On Nov, 23, 1983 an application for directions was filed by the petitioners, asking specifically that the Municipal Commissioner be asked, to formulate a scheme for the licensing of hawkers in Greater Bombay by creating hawking zones. That application was heard by us along with the writ petitions, when the parties argued upon the merits and demerits of the scheme proposed by the Municipal 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.
8. In view of the fact that we are primarily concerned to consider the merits and feasibility of the scheme proposed by the Municipal Commissioner, it is unnecessary 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 by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on, any trade or business is subject to the provisions of clause (6) of that Article, which provides that nothing in sub-clause (g) of Article 19(1), shall affect the operation of any existing law insofar 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. The affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents show in unmistakable terms that the impugned provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act are in the nature of reasonable restrictions, in the interests of the general public, on the exercise of the right of hawkers to carry on their 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 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 hawkers were to be conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold the society to ransom by squatting 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 pedestrians to walk on footpaths or even on the streets properly so-called.
9. In order to give the background and a full picture of the recommendations made by the Commissioner, it would be desirable to reproduce the letter of the Commissioner dated Sept. 30, 1983 to the Mayor of Bombay, who was the Chairman of the Hawkers Committee. The Scheme proposed by the Commissioner forms part of that letter. That letter reads as follows :
"No. MDG/2418
30th September, 1983
To,
The Mayor of Bombay &
Chairman, Hawkers Committee,
Corporation Hall,
Bombay - 400 001.
Sub. :- Creation of Hawking Zones in Greater Bombay,
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 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, 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 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 Areas may give rise to rampant, hawking activity in the remaining areas and a demand for issue of licences freely to hawkers who will mushroom in those areas, This will it was stated, defeat the main purpose viz. that of proper regulation of hawkers and their activities. I then clarified that it was never my intention that hawking should be permitted freely in areas not covered by No Hawking Zones/Areas. 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 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(o) of the Bombay Municipal 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 objects which they sell and which they exhibit in the stalls or on the roads/pavements, constitute an obstruction/projection in or upon streets and 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. 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 the roads in the Central Business, 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 hawkers should 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 alternative sites.
"Thus, having regard to the resources of vehicles, staff etc. at our disposal, we could identify in each Ward the streets/areas where intensive removal action against 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 dynamic situation, for intensive removal action, if hawkers do their hawking business without seriously affecting the vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic or causing nuisance, they may be tolerated by sufferance and a daily fee at the rate of Rs. 3/- per day from a male hawker and at the rate of Rs. 1/- per day from a female hawker may be recovered, without prejudice to our right to remove them should 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 concerned.
"The following restrictions/conditions shall be imposed on such hawkers : -
(i) They should do their hawking business only on an area of 1 Mt. X 1 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.
(ii) They should not put up any stall or place 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.
(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 150 metres from any Municipal or other market.
(iv) They should not create any noise for attracting the public/customers.
(v) They should not hawk any cooked food articles, cut fruits 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 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 should also co-operate with other Government and public agencies such 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 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 a meeting of the Committee very urgently for consideration of the proposals set out herein.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (D. M. Sukthankar)
Municipal Commissioner."
10. We have considered carefully the eight conditions mentioned above, subject to which the Commissioner proposes to grant licences to 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 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 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 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 particular 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) 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, 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 licensing 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 10P.M. instead of 7 A.M. to 9 P.M. In cities like Bombay, nights are quite young at. 10 p.m.
11. Insofar as Hawking and Non-Hawking Zones are concerned the Commissioner should adopt the following modalities :
(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.
(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 the Commissioner to extend the limits of the Non-Hawking Zones in the interests of public health, sanitation, safety, 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 Hawking Zone should be exercised by the Commissioner reasonably and in public interest.
(e) In future, before making any alteration in the Scheme, the Commissioner 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. 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 be regulated. The power conferred upon the Commissioner by S. 313A of 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 binding effect on all concerned. The scheme shall be framed, as far as possible, before October 31, 1985.
12. In the result we direct that the Municipal Commissioner will proceed to frame the final scheme on the lines suggested above, as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1985 SC 1206