1/3 2 wp-12808-16.odt Salgaonkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12808 OF 2016 Smt.Saraswati Prayagdin Varma & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents … Mr.Siddhesh Pilankar with Mr.Nitesh Omprakash Gupta for the Petitioner Nos.1, 3 to 17. Ms.P.N. Diwan, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent. Mr.Rishikesh M. Pethe for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026 ... P.C:- 1. The Petitioners are the vendors engaged in street vending, being in possession of vendor licenses for Vending Zone No. 216 at Kamala Nehru Park, Pune. The Petitioners, in the background that the Pune Municipal Corporation has invited a tender for carrying out repairs and blocking on footpath vide its advertisement issued in 2013, apprehended an action under Section 231 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Feeling aggrieved by the act of the of@cers of the Municipal Corporation visiting the site, with an attempt to remove the vendor carts, the Petitioners approached the Court MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR Digitally signed by MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR Date: 2026.06.18 18:44:51 +0530 2/3 2 wp-12808-16.odt seeking direction to decide their representation. The primary ground raised in the representation is not taking any adverse action against the Petitioners, as they stood protected by The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short, “The Act of 2014”). 3. The learned counsel representing the Corporation/ Respondent Nos.2 and 3, has invited our attention to a Resolution passed by the Corporation in regards to the subject of rehabilitation of vendors, after necessary approval is sought from the Town Vending Committee (“TVC”). In the said Resolution it is evident that the vendors, who were affected on account of the footpath being vacated, were provided an alternative arrangement and their vending was permitted within the speci@ed timelines in the area speci@ed therein. 4. In any case, we really wonder, whether the situation continues to remain the same after lapse of a decade. However, if the Petitioners have any grievance in regards to their vending activity, and since they are entitled to carry out the vending activity after obtaining proper license from the Corporation and their rights stand protected under the Act of 2014 and the scheme formulated by the State of Maharashtra, the Petitioners are at liberty to @le appropriate representation to TVC, which is now constituted or make individual grievance, if they are aggrieved as regards any future action, which adversely affects them. 3/3 2 wp-12808-16.odt Leaving the aforesaid liberty open, the Petition stands disposed of. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)