The hawkers moved the high court apprehending eviction to pave way for the project.

The public appeal made by Assistant Commissioner (C ward) informs about the novel project embarked upon by BMC for developing a pedestrian place at Zaveri Bazaar. The pavement is planned across Shaikh Memon Street, Mirza Street, Dhanji Street, Shamseth Street Suat chawl and Agiary Lane.

“The Bombay Bullion Association has joined this venture in a big way and they are going to provide around 300 decorative street lamp posts with affixed dustbin on the said road,” the public appeal states. It further says that “the BBA is going to provide further amenities such as continuous sweeping, private security, CCTV and public address system for further convenience of the visitors.”

The assistant commissioner states that the number of customers will “increase multi-fold” once the project is completed.

The Mumbai Hawkers’ Association, appearing for the hawkers of the C ward, has alleged that the public appeal was issued at the instance of BBA without any authority and hence it was illegal without following due process of law.

“Hawkers cannot be removed under the guise of beautification of the area without following due process of law,” the petition states.

The petition also states that as per the national policy on urban street vendors hawkers and vendors should not be arbitrarily evicted in the name of 'beautification' of city space.

“The beautification and clean-up programme undertaken by the states or towns should actively involve street vendors in a positive way as part of the beautification programme,” the petitioner states.

The petition further said that as per Apex court directions the State government has not framed its policy to implement the national policy on urban street vendors.

“Therefore, till the policy is framed they are entitled to carry on business without any hindrance,” petition states.

A division bench of Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice S A Bobde, however, dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petition lacked merit as it has been filed on the basis of a notice. The court held that the notice does not say anywhere that the petitioners will be affected.