903.WP.2815.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2815 OF 2026 Vinod Premsingh Sonar ...Petitioner Versus The Brihnmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Somnath Iyer for the Petitioner. Ms K. H. Mastkar for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-BMC Ms Rita Joshi, AGP (Through VC) for the Respondent No. 3-State. CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The instant Writ Petition is preferred for the following substantive reliefs: (A) Quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 28.06.2024 (Exh-F) the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 (Exh-H) and the consequential demolition action carried out by the Respondents; (B) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to reconstruct and resume his vending stall at the original site, or in the alternative, allot an equivalent vending site in the same or nearby area; (C) Direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for issuance of a vending certificate or allotment of a vending site in accordance with the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending Act, 2014); 3. At the outset, learned Counsel for Petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 3(2)(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (for short “the AKN 1 ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date: 2026.09.30 11:12:17 +0530 903.WP.2815.2026.doc Disability Rules, 2017) which provides that no person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim. He submits that it is an admitted case that the Petitioner is suffering from a disability and accordingly he has relied upon the Certificate of Disability. He submits that initially the impugned Notice dated 28th June, 2024 has been passed in arbitrary manner and later on in response to the said Impugned Notice an Order dated 21 st March, 2025 was passed. This, in spite of the fact that the Petitioner was having the disability, he was dispossessed and his shop was demolished. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner heavily relied upon Section 17 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (for short “the Street Vendors Act of 2014”) which mandate the Respondent- Authority to relocate or eviction of a street vendors. He submits that once he is having the disability and the Respondents have already carried out the demolition of his shop, it is incumbent upon the Respondent-Authority to ensure some appropriate place be provided under the provisions of the Street Vendors Act of 2014. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on the proviso to Section 22(2)(d) of the Street Vendors Act of 2014, which provides that due representation shall be given to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities and persons with disabilities from amongst the members representing street vendors. AKN 2 903.WP.2815.2026.doc 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondents resisted the reliefs and submits that the Street Vendors Act of 2014 itself is a self contained Act. Nothing is brought on record to indicate that the Petitioner was registered as a street vendor and no such survey has been carried out to indicate the Petitioner was actually doing business at the roadside. However, she fairly submits that in case there is any policy and vending zone is already been earmarked, in that event, the case of the Petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law. 7. Considering the factual situation as emerged before us, we expect the Competent Authority/Town Vending Committee under the Street Vendors Act of 2014 may consider the grievance of the Petitioner, examine the same to be remedied in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Order, in case there is no other legal impediment, certainly after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is Disposed Of. 9. Needless to state, we have not adverted to the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] AKN 3