Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(SC) 1954

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N. Variava, H.K. Sema, JJ.
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkwers Union & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & Ors. - Respondents
C.A. No. 4156-4157 of 2002 with C.A. No. 4158-4159 of 2002, C.A. No. 4161-4162 of 2002, C.A. No. 4163-4164 of 2002, C.A. No. 4160 of 2002, C.A. No. 4170-4271 of 2002, C.A. No. 4167-4169 of 2002, I.A. Nos. 15-17, C.A. No. 4175-4176 of 2002, C.A. No. 4179-4180 of 2002 C.A.No. 4172-4174 of 2002 CONMT.PET.(Civil)No. 195-196 of 2001 C.A. No. 4178 of 2002 C.A. No. 4177 of 2002 C.A. No. 9661 of 2003 C.A.No.9662 of 2003 C.A. No. 9663-9666 of 2003, C.A. No. 9666 of 2003, C.A. No. 9667 of 2003, CONMT.Pet.(C) No. 456-458 of 2002
Decided On : 01-04-2005

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 4156-57/02 : Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 4158-4159/02 : Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advovate., Mr. Brij Sah, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 4160/2002 : Mr. M.N.Shroff, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 4170-4171/02 : Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 4167-4169/02 : Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advovate., Mr. P.I.Jose, Advovate., Mr. Anupam Mishra, Advovate., Mr. Jenis, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 4165-4166/02 : Mr. V.N. Ganpule, Sr. Advovate., Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advovate., Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 4179-4180/02 : Mr. Anand Grover, Advovate., Mr. Bharat Sangal, Advovate., Ms. Sangeeta Panicker, Advovate., Mr. R.R.Kumar, Advovate., Mr. Samyadip Chatterji, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 9662/2003 : Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Advovate., Mr. Abhay Thorat, Advovate., Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 9663-9666/03 : Mr. Vimal Chandra S.Dave, Advovate
For the Appellants in CA 9667/2003 : Mr. Dinesh C. Shah, Advovate., Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advovate., Mr. Ashwani Garg, Advovate
For the Appellants In CA 9661/2003 & in CP 456-458/02 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Advovate
For the Respondents: Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, SG Mr. S.H. Ujjainwala, Advovate., Mr. M.V. Patil, Advovate
For the State of Maharashtra : Mr. S. S. Shinde, Advovate. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Advovate., Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advovate. Mr. Debasis Misra, Advovate., Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advovate., Mr. P.P. Khurana, Advovate., Mr. V.K. Verma, Advovate., Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advovate., Mr. Rajeev Panday, Advovate., Mr. Sushil K. Tekriwal, Advovate., Mr. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Advovate., Mr. V.N. Ganpule, Sr. Advovate., Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advovate., Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Advovate., Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Advovate., Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Advovate., Mr. Rohan Thawani, Advovate., Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Advovate., Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advovate.,Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advovate., Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Sr. Advovate., Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar, Advovate., Mr. Uday B. Dube, Advovate., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advovate., Ms. Hema Sahu, Advovate., Mr. C.L. Sahu, Advovate., Mr. R.D. Rathore, Advovate., Dr. Kailash Chand, Advovate., Mr. Dinesh C. Shah, Advovate., Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advovate., Mr. Ashwani Garg, Advovate., Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advovate., Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advovate., Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar, Advovate., Mr. K. Rajeev, Advovate., Mr. J.F. Pochkhanawalla, Sr. Advovate., Mr. Shri Narain, Advovate., Mr. Sandeep Narain, Advovate., Ms. Anjali Jha, Advovate. for M/S. S. Narain & Co. Mr. Anand Grover, Advovate., Mr. Bharat Sangal, Advovate., Ms. Sangeeta Panicker, Advovate., Mr. R.R. Kumar, Advovate., Mr. Samyadip Chatterji, Advovate., Ms. Nandini Gore, Advovate., Mr. Samist Mistry, Advovate., Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Advovate., Mr. V.Ramasubramanian, Advovate., Mr. Shyam Diwan, Advovate., Ms. Madhavi Divan, Advovate., Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Advovate., Mr. S.V.Deshpande, Advovate., Mr. Satyajit Saha, Advovate., Mrs.V.D.Khanna, Advovate., Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advovate., Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advovate., Mr. Brij Kishore Sah, Advovate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to address contempt of court, ensure the protection of Municipal staff, regulate the charging of fees by the Committee, and enhance transparency in the Committee's procedures.

Headnote:
Contempt - Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay - The court directed the Municipal Corporation to issue notice to certain individuals for instigating hawkers to act against court orders and preventing the implementation of a scheme. The police was also directed to provide protection to the Municipal staff and ensure that removed hawkers do not return to the same place. The court clarified the amount that the Committee is entitled to charge from citizens' groups and others and instructed the Committee to make hearing dates and decisions known to the public.
Fact of the Case:

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay was directed to issue notice to certain individuals for instigating hawkers to act against court orders and preventing the implementation of a scheme. The police was also directed to provide protection to the Municipal staff and ensure that removed hawkers do not return to the same place. The court clarified the amount that the Committee is entitled to charge from citizens' groups and others and instructed the Committee to make hearing dates and decisions known to the public.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that certain individuals were instigating hawkers to act against court orders and preventing the implementation of a scheme. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to issue notice to these individuals and instructed the police to provide protection to the Municipal staff. The court also clarified the amount that the Committee is entitled to charge from citizens' groups and others and instructed the Committee to make hearing dates and decisions known to the public.
Issues: Contempt of court, protection of Municipal staff, charging of fees by the Committee, transparency in Committee's procedures
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to address contempt of court by certain individuals, ensure the protection of Municipal staff, regulate the charging of fees by the Committee, and enhance transparency in the Committee's procedures.
Final Decision: The final decision was to direct the Municipal Corporation to issue notice to certain individuals, instruct the police to provide protection to the Municipal staff, clarify the amount that the Committee is entitled to charge, and instruct the Committee to make hearing dates and decisions known to the public.

JUDGMENT :

1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay have supplied the names and addresses of six following persons:-

1. Shri Suresh Mahadev Kapile, 21/175, Unnat Nagar, M.G.Road, Goregaon, Mumbai-400 064

2. Shri Ramaswami Unnarappa Gauda, Sumangal Co-op. Hsg.Society Room No. 1, Dindayal Cross Road, Dombivali (West) Distt.Thane.

3.Shri Dinbandhu Maurya, 2/203, Asav Palav, Kasturi Park, Navghar Road,,Bhaindar (East), Distt.Thane

4.Shri Vasant Tukra Salian, Queens Mansion, 4th Floor, Room No. 18, Bldg. No.44, Amrut Keshav Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

5.Shri Shakil Ahemad Mohassin Shaikh, Dr. Zakir Hussain Nagar Zopadpatti, Mankhurd Link Road, Mumbai-400 043

6.Shri Narendra Kashinath Nirgudkar, Parijat Society, New Mhada Complex, Bldg. No.19 A, Room No. 4, Borivali (East), Mumbai-400 066.

Office to issue notice to them as to why action in contempt should not be taken against them for instigating hawkers to act against Orders passed by this Court and for preventing implementation of the scheme framed by this Court.

2. The Police is directed to give full and complete protection to the Municipal staff as and when they go to clear the hawkers as per the directions of this Court. It will be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay to see that such protection is given. The Police Commissioner shall also ensure that there is regular patrolling to ensure that once the hawkers are removed from a particular place, they do not come back to that place.

3. It appears that apart from a sum of Rs. 3,000/- provided for in our Order in the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai & Ors., reported in (2004) 1 SCC 625, the Committee is demanding a further sum of Rs. 1,500/- from citizens' group or others who appear either to support or to object to the proposals being considered by the Committee. It is clarified that the Committee will not be entitled to charge any further or other amount from such persons or groups. All that the Chairman of Committee will be entitled to is the sum of Rs. 3,000/- as provided in our above said Order.

4. The Committee must also work out a procedure by which the dates of hearing are made known to the public and the result or their decision is also made known to all parties particularly those who had participated before the Committee.

5. List on 26th July, 2005.

6. Copies of all the reports which have been received by this Court to be given to all parties who apply for the same.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis