The Bombay High Court has clarified that a circular issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in 2018, which prohibits the cooking of food items on footpaths or roads using gas, stoves, or grills, does not apply to vendors who use electronic induction equipment. The decision was delivered by Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla in a case concerning a war veteran and former Indian Army serviceman who operated a licensed food stall under the name “Jai Jawan” on Linking Road in Bandra.
The petitioner, a disabled veteran who had served in the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars, had been running his food stall with permission from the BMC. He sold fried fish prepared using an electronic induction vessel rather than gas or charcoal. The BMC had periodically inspected his establishment and allowed him to continue operations. However, during an inspection in January 2019, the authorities observed that he was frying fish using an 18-inch induction vessel. Subsequently, in August 2019, the civic body issued a direction asking him to cease his business, citing the 2018 circular that banned cooking on public roads and footpaths using gas or grills.
Challenging this order before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his method of cooking did not fall under the prohibitions of the circular. He maintained that he was not cooking directly on the footpath or road but within an authorised stall space, and that he was not using gas or open-flame equipment. The BMC, on the other hand, contended that the purpose of the circular was to maintain hygiene, safety, and public order, and that all forms of cooking in such locations should be prohibited.
The Court examined the specific wording of the circular and noted that it explicitly referred to cooking “on a footpath or road with the help of gas, stove, or grill.” It held that the circular could not be interpreted to include induction-based cooking, as induction devices function differently from traditional cooking appliances that involve open flames or combustion. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner was operating from a permitted stall rather than directly on a public road or pavement.
Justice Pooniwalla ruled that the BMC’s direction to stop the petitioner’s business was illegal and beyond the scope of the circular. The order issued in August 2019 was therefore quashed, and the Court directed the BMC not to obstruct the petitioner’s lawful business operations. The judgment clarified that restrictions on street-food vendors must be interpreted strictly in line with the text of the circulars and statutory provisions, and cannot be extended to situations not explicitly covered by them.
In essence, the Court reaffirmed that municipal authorities cannot impose additional restrictions beyond what the law or circulars specify. Since the BMC’s circular targeted cooking using gas or grills on footpaths or roads, it could not be applied to an authorised vendor using an induction vessel within his designated stall. The decision provides clarity for food vendors and local authorities, distinguishing between prohibited and permissible forms of street-food preparation under municipal regulations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.