B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard, by consent of the parties.

2. All these Petitions are either by the Associations of Hawkers or Hawkers in their individual capacity, from various parts of the State, within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat of this Court, including the City of Greater Mumbai. The Petitioners have initially approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including the relief to restrain all Municipal Commissioners and Chief Officers and local authorities all over Maharashtra from evicting, imposing fines and harassing the existing street vendors as on 01/05/2014 from the places/sites where they are carrying vending profession as street vendors.

3. Petitioners have thereafter amended the Petition and have also challenged the Order issued by Respondent No.1 dated 01/12/2015 purportedly under Section 39 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (Hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” for brief).

4. Petitioners have also challenged the validity of Rule 15 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending (Maharashtra) Rules, 2016 (For short “the said Rules”) being ultra vires of the said Act.

5. Petitioners have also challenged the scheme purportedly framed under the provisions of Section 38 of the said Act vide Government Resolution dated 09/01/2017.

6. Petitioners have also challenged the Government Resolution dated 09/01/2017, which has issued directions for appointment of first Vending Committee without representation to vendors and thereafter Election of Representatives for existing street vendors.

7. Petitioners have also challenged the Registered Voters List, as published under the provisions of the said Rules. Prayer is also made, directing the Respondent – State not to publish the Scheme under Section 38 of the said Act without consulting the statutorily constituted Town Vending Committee (For short “TVC”).

8. Several interim reliefs have also been prayed in the Petitions, in effect directing the Respondents – Authorities not to take any coercive steps against the hawkers / vendors, who are carrying on their business in various Cities in the State.

9. We have extensively heard Mr. B.A. Desai, learned Senior Counsel, Mrs. Gayatri Singh, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.M. Vashi, learned Senior Counsel and also Mrs. Neeta Karnik, Mr. R.U. Singh, Mr. Vishal Kanade, Mr. Firdoz Musa, Mr. Avinash Belge, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. We have also heard Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of Respondent – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (For short “MCGM”) and Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Advocate General for the State.

CONTENTIONS

10. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel who led the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners, submitted that various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and now the said Act, have recognized rights of street vendors to be a right to life emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act itself would reveal that the said Act has been enacted to recognize rights of street vendors as a source of self-employment. He submitted that right to street vending serves two purposes viz (i) it provides self-employment to vast majority of unemployed people and (ii) it enables majority of population to buy goods at affordable prices at convenient vending places. He submitted that the said Act has been enacted so as to give effect to National Policy of Urban Street Vendors, 2009, which aims at securing right of the citizens to have adequate means of livelihood as enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 38(2), 39(a), 39(b) and 41 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the said enactment aims at fostering a congenial environment for the urban street vendors to carry out their activities, without harassment from