Introduction:
In Palima Rajendra Kondar, Tata Nagar Zopadpatti v. Deputy Commissioner (Writ Petition No. 3890 of 2021), the Bombay High Court expressed serious concern over the Maharashtra Government’s failure to establish Grievance Redressal Committees under Section 20 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. A Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed that despite a Government Resolution dated 28 April 2026 directing the constitution of these Committees across the State within three months, compliance remained negligible. The Court emphasized that the grievance redressal mechanism is a statutory requirement and an essential safeguard intended to protect the rights and livelihood of street vendors.
The proceedings arose while the High Court was monitoring compliance with its earlier directions regarding implementation of the Street Vendors Act. The Urban Development Department had instructed all Municipal Commissioners and District Collectors to constitute the Committees and submit compliance reports. However, the material placed before the Court revealed that only nine Committees had been constituted across Maharashtra—one in a Municipal Corporation and eight in Municipal Councils. This extremely poor level of compliance prompted the Court to question the seriousness with which government authorities were implementing both statutory obligations and governmental directions.
The central issue before the Court was whether the continued failure to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees violated the mandate of the 2014 Act and undermined the legal rights guaranteed to street vendors under the statutory framework.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners contended that the Street Vendors Act, 2014 is a beneficial legislation enacted to safeguard the livelihood and dignity of street vendors by providing a transparent mechanism for regulation and dispute resolution. They submitted that Section 20 of the Act expressly requires the constitution of one or more Grievance Redressal Committees so that vendors have an effective forum to challenge grievances relating to vending rights, implementation of the Scheme and actions of local authorities.
It was argued that despite repeated judicial directions and the Government Resolution issued on 28 April 2026, the State authorities had failed to establish the Committees across Maharashtra. Such inaction, according to the petitioners, defeated the very purpose of the legislation and deprived thousands of street vendors of their statutory remedy. The petitioners therefore sought strict directions to ensure immediate compliance by all concerned authorities.
The State Government, through the learned Assistant Government Pleader, informed the Court that the Urban Development Department had already issued detailed instructions directing Municipal Corporations and District Collectors to constitute the Committees. However, it was submitted that practical difficulties had arisen in identifying eligible persons to serve as Chairpersons and members of the Committees in accordance with the qualifications prescribed under the Maharashtra Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2016.
The State attempted to explain that the process required suitable appointments and coordination at various administrative levels, which had delayed implementation. It assured the Court that efforts were being made to complete the constitution of the Committees as early as possible.
Court’s Judgment:
The Bombay High Court found the explanation offered by the State wholly unsatisfactory and observed that there was no genuine impediment preventing the constitution of the Grievance Redressal Committees. The Bench remarked that the Court was not directing the Government to undertake any extraordinary exercise but merely insisting upon compliance with a statutory obligation expressly contemplated under Section 20 of the Street Vendors Act.
The Court observed that the very purpose of constituting Grievance Redressal Committees is to provide an accessible and effective mechanism through which street vendors may seek redress of grievances. The statutory framework authorises the Committees to receive written complaints, verify the facts and take appropriate steps to resolve disputes. Without these Committees, one of the most important safeguards provided under the Act becomes practically unavailable to beneficiaries.
The Bench noted with concern that although the Government Resolution required compliance within three months, only nine Committees had been constituted throughout the State. Such poor implementation, the Court observed, reflected the casual manner in which subordinate authorities had treated both the statutory mandate and the directions issued by the Urban Development Department.
Rejecting the State’s plea regarding the difficulty in appointing qualified members, the Court observed that the Maharashtra Street Vendors Rules clearly prescribe the qualifications for appointment of Chairpersons and members. The requirement that the Chairperson should be a person who has served as a Civil Judge or Judicial Magistrate could easily be addressed by seeking suitable nominations through the District Judiciary. The Court stated that it found no convincing reason why such appointments could not be made across every district.
The Bench remarked that the explanation furnished by the authorities created an impression that the Government was making excuses rather than sincerely attempting to implement its own Resolution. It observed that compliance with statutory duties cannot depend upon administrative convenience, particularly where the legislation is intended to protect the livelihood of economically vulnerable sections of society.
The Court further clarified that it was not the function of the judiciary to supervise every stage of administrative implementation. Instead, responsibility rested with the Urban Development Department to ensure that its own directions were faithfully implemented by officers across the State. If subordinate officers failed to comply with governmental instructions, the Department was expected to examine whether such conduct amounted to administrative misconduct and to take appropriate action.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the overall response of the authorities, the Court observed that their approach was extremely careless and inconsistent with the obligations imposed by the Street Vendors Act. The Bench therefore directed the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department to personally file an affidavit before the Court confirming compliance with the statutory requirement. It cautioned that if satisfactory compliance was not ensured, the Court would be compelled to observe that subordinate officers were disregarding the Government Resolution, leaving it open to the State Government to consider disciplinary action against the erring officials.
Recognising the need to provide one final opportunity for compliance, the Court extended the time for constituting the Grievance Redressal Committees until 31 August 2026. The matter was directed to be listed on 3 September 2026 for monitoring compliance.
The judgment highlights that welfare legislation cannot achieve its intended purpose unless the institutional mechanisms created by Parliament are effectively implemented. By insisting upon the timely constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that statutory rights conferred upon street vendors must be supported by functional grievance redressal institutions. The decision also serves as a reminder that administrative authorities cannot ignore legislative mandates or Government Resolutions without accountability, especially where the rights and livelihoods of vulnerable citizens are at stake.