Bombay High Court Orders Investigation into Illegal Stall Operations in Mumbai
The Bombay High Court has taken significant action against illegal street stalls in Mumbai, directing the Municipal Commissioner to investigate BMC officials who allegedly permitted these operations. The court's ruling follows a petition from Nirvana Housing Society, highlighting the persistence of an unauthorized stall despite previous demolitions. The BMC's failure to enforce regulations has raised serious concerns, prompting the court to demand immediate action against the encroachment. This case underscores the ongoing challenges of illegal street vendors in urban areas and the need for stricter enforcement of municipal laws.
Jul 26, 2025, 15:53 IST
Court Directs Inquiry into BMC Officials
The Bombay High Court has mandated the Municipal Commissioner of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to investigate the involvement of municipal officials who allegedly sanctioned an illegal stall selling pan, bidi, and gutkha outside a housing society in Mumbai. The court not only ordered the immediate removal of the unauthorized structure but also instructed the Municipal Commissioner to initiate an inquiry against those officials who failed to act against the encroachment for over six years.
Background of the Case
A bench comprising Justices G S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing a petition filed by Nirvana Housing Society. The petition claimed that despite the BMC demolishing the illegal stall in November 2019, it was re-established and continued to operate without any valid license or permission. An inspection report dated July 17, 2023, confirmed the stall's existence, noting it lacked both health and trade licenses.
BMC's Actions and Court's Observations
The BMC informed the court that a notice was issued to the stall operator under the Mumbai Municipal Act on July 23, 2025, granting 48 hours for voluntary removal of the stall. The municipal body indicated that if compliance was not met, they would proceed with demolition. Although the stall owner presented their case through legal counsel, they failed to file a counter affidavit, which the court interpreted as tacit approval of the stall's illegality.