Get involved in YOUR city and locality - Improve Your World
Get involved in YOUR city and locality - Improve Your World
Get involved in YOUR city and locality 
Improve Your World Home | About Us | Sitemap | Search | Contact Us 

  Home >> Hawkers >> Responses to Affidavit of Bhaskar Gholap, License Inspector, BMC


Responses to Affidavit of Bhaskar Gholap, License Inspector, BMC   – 17th Nov 2000 – to the High Court


Points mentioned in Affidavit


Suggestion / reco / remark


Challenging the implementation of the scheme of hawking and non hawking zones as framed by the BMC and that were approved by the High Court




Pilot schemes of hawking and non-hawking zones were taken up in A ward, P south and N west ward

Navin kumar challenged the allotment of hawking pitches



Therafter hawking and no hawking zones were prepared for the whole city

When taken up for implementation, residents associations and hawkers associations challenged the scheme in the High Court in 1998



Suggestions and objections were once again invited, and the scheme was then finalised. The high court upheld this scheme by its order dated 5th July 2000 with minor modifications / directions. Gave direction to implement within 3 months from august 2nd 2000.




The BMC started taking steps to implement the approved scheme by drawing of lots for pitches, etc.




The present petition was filed questioning the allotment of pitches on roads.

Licensed hawkers also filed a petition against their being shifted to the designated hawking zones, and against the decision not to allow stalls on the roads.

Housing societies / offices also filed a petition against pitches in front of their premises.

Bombay Stock Exchange filed a petition against pitches in front of its building because of security concerns.

Thomas Cook filed a petition because of heritage concerns.










The court directed BMC to re-look at the Bombay Stock Exchange and Thomas Cook cases, and take a fresh decision.


Some group or other is going to protest.


Looking at the stiff opposition to the scheme, even after revision, whenever implementation came up, made the BMC feel that the entire scheme needs to be looked at afresh, to address the concerns of the various affected persons.


This means that the earlier scheme framed didn’t have a very strong basis – which the BMC felt confident of defending.


The BMC agreed to put implementation of the scheme on hold, hear all the concerned parties, and then suggest modifications, if any to the scheme, to the Court.


Prolonging of the process


The proposed modified scheme is as follows:

a) 1 m X 1m hawking pitches will be marked without obstructing pedestrians and traffic

b) Space is limited, hence multiple use of existing spaces – using pavements where available, for hawking pitches, following overall DP Plan

c) some no hawking zones will be required – such as railway stations, etc. However instead of having one prohibited distance for the entire city, it was felt that BMC with hawkers and NGOs would decide on local ward, specific solutions.

Further within those areas where hawkers already operate, regulation such as “pay and hawk” will be introduced, and instead of regulating individual hawkers, BMC would regulate the registered association of hawkers who operate in that area.

d) there will not be lottery for pitches. Hawkers who are displaced will be accommodated in plazas, or other spaces.

e) Place outside municipal markets to be allowed for hawkers by treating it as extended municipal market

f) existing licence hawkers will be exempt from these scheme

g) suggest not to have a ban on cooking – have cooking permitted in designated khau gallis














Q: ask Mr.Gholap – the tenure for such hawkers and hence their associations – annually or in perpetuity?




e) Disagree


b) explain multiple use of spaces – pay and hawk, etc. – else it just sounds good – cannot be made implementable

c) standard rules for no hawking zones across the city – local ward specific solutions can be decided for hawking areas.

Regulating the association of hawkers – is recommended – collective responsibility

d) Lottery will be essential – at least in the first few years – until the numbers are regulated and fixed. Even to accommodate all hawkers, “all” has to be known and fixed.

e) Municipal markets will remain empty if hawkers operate outside – further this causes problems of waste and traffic outside the markets – hence no one enters

f) existing hawkers exempt

g) agreed – but these will be limited in number – cannot have one per ward, so many wards will have no cooking on streets.


The above scheme has the approval of group leaders in BMC, and on approval of the HC, after consultation with affected groups, it can be taken up for implementation.




It is one of the beautiful compensations of this life that no one can sincerely try to help another without helping himself. --Charles Dudley Warner