1 ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0481612026 Item No.5 Ct. No.1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. (P) 463 of 2026 Salt Lake Sector Five Hawkers Welfare Association & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Appearance: Mr. Debashis Banerjee Mr. Rakesh Jana Mr. Apurba Kalya …..Advocate for Petitioners Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Ld. A.A.G. Mrs. Amrita Pandey Mr. S. Mishra .....Advocate for State CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE, CHIEF JUSTICE & OM NARAYAN RAI, J. Date: 23.09.2026 Order (Per Court) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners at length. We have considered the grounds formulated for posing a challenge to the decision taken by the civic authorities vide the Minutes of the 7th Meeting 2 dated 03.07.2026. The challenge is against the prohibition on the use of LPG gas cylinders by the food vendors cooking food on the footpath. A violation of such a direction is to be considered as an offence for which the police authorities would be taking strict action. 2. For the sake of brevity, we are reproducing the relevant portion of the decision taken by the Town Vending Committee of Nabadiganta Industrial Township Authority, North 24 Parganas near the Airport, as under: “The Executive Officer, NDITA & Chairman, Town Vending Committee took the chair and initiated discussions. This is the 7th meeting of this committee. After elaborate discussions the following decisions have been taken:- 1. In light of the nature of vending activities to be allowed as per the Rule 14(3) in the West Bengal Urban Street Vendors Rules 2018, and the possible fire accidents that can take place due to unlicensed use of gas cylinders by vendors, it has been decided that gas cylinder will not be allowed to be used on the footpath. The police authorities were requested to take strict cognizance of the matter and take action against any vendor suo moto where violation in this matter is found. 2. In light of the nature of vending activities to be allowed as per the Rule 14(4) in the West Bengal Urban Street Vendors Rules 2018, use of plastic/tarpaulin will not be allowed. 3. It was decided that no hawker will occupy footpath by putting table chair etc. effectively converting the vending activity into a restaurant or like activity. The street vendor should restrict themselves to vending activity and not convert the same to shop-like structures. 4. It was decided that cleaning of utensils etc. at roadside will not be permissible. Police authorities were again requested to check this practice by taking action against any vendor violating the same. This has reference of the Rule 14(2) of the West Bengal Urban Street Vendors Rules 2018. 5. It was decided that the following list will be shared with police authorities for immediate removal: a. Cases where rehabilitation has been arranged by NDITA but the vendors have refused to relocate themselves. b. Cases where vendors found on site are not on the survey list made in 2020. c. Cases whose name has not appeared in the SIR list and no appeal is pending before the tribunal. 3 6. It was decided that cases where arrangements for shifting of hawkers on one side of the footpath has been made through the NDITA funds, the shifting will be completed within the next 7 days. This also includes the shifting of hawkers from footpath to the Multi Level Car Parking, AQ-11 which has been already created from the funds of NDITA which also has a reference of the WPA 21446 of 2024. The list of such vendors will also be shared with the police authorities to ensure that street vending is not allowed to be carried out by such vendors. 7. In light of the Rule 9 e (i), it was decided that 2/3rd of footpath width will be free for pedestrian movement. 8. It was decided that no hawkers will carry their business using black top surface/road ways. The stall/portion of stall will be removed immediately. 9. It was decided that throwing of waste products from stalls on road/in gully pits will be stopped immediately. Hawkers Unions will take action for the same jointly.” 3. The Petitioners have averred in Paragraph 2 that there are 970 street vendors in Sector -5 Nabadiganta Industrial Township Authority area, who are affected by the impugned decision and 19 street vendors are Petitioners before this Court in this Petition. The argument is that these vendors be permitted to use LPG Gas cylinders on the footpaths for cooking food and for selling of food and beverage and other eatable items without compromising with fire safety and public hygiene. It is further canvassed that these vendors do not have any electricity supply to cook food using the induction hot plate. Customers approach such eateries on the footpaths since food is served fresh, hot and hygienically prepared. 4. The Learned Additional Advocate General submits that a conscious decision has been taken by the authorities in order to ensure that 4 there is no accident that could occur on account of unlicensed use of LPG gas cylinders. Fire accidents is one of the serious concerns of the authorities. The street vendors use plastic/tarpaulin for the purpose of creating a shade over the cooking area as well as for the consumers. Most of the footpaths are completely blocked because of such cooking and food dispensation activities. The authorities have initiated a rehabilitation programme and those, who are willing to be rehabilitated, are being relocated to a place, where there would be safe cooking and food dispensation activity. Several vendors have refused to move and the Petitioners are some of them. 5. A glance at the impugned decision in the light of the pleadings set out in the Petition, indicates to us that the authorities cannot be accused of having resorted to a perverse or arbitrary action. Just because vendors find it convenient to cook on the street footpaths would not mean that unregulated cooking could be permitted with the use of unlicensed LPG Gas cylinders. The Petitioners have failed to indicate arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order. 6. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the Civic authorities have taken a decision that clearly appears to have been taken in public interest and to ensure that the footpaths are not blocked or do not 5 become accident prone. A rehabilitation program has also been undertaken. Such vendors are being located at a place earmarked by the authorities. 7. We, therefore, find no reason to entertain this PIL. This Petition is dismissed. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice