IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO.89 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2783 OF 1989 Cross Maidan Parsi Bawdi Hawkers Society & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Anand Groover with Ms. F. Moosa i/b Mr. Prakash Mahadik for the Petitioners Mr. D.A. Nalawde, G.P. For State, Respondent No.1. Ms. T. H. Puranik- BMC- Respondent No.3 CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 15th September , 2009 P.C. : 1. The grievance in the Contempt Petition is that a demolition of the temporary structures and wooden boxes of Hawkers between Cross Maidan and Churchgate, took place despite an interim order dated 27th November 1989, passed by a Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition 2783 of 1989, which was thereafter continued by the Division Bench on 27th August 1999. 2. The Government Pleader submits that in view of the directions of the Supreme Court, it will not be open to this Court to entertain the Petition, in so far as it seeks any order touching upon the subject matter dealt with in successive Judgments of the Supreme Court on the subject. In the first Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 30th July 2004 (Exhibit-O), the Supreme Court disapproved of an order passed by this Court, when the exercise of framing a scheme and overseeing implementation was being carried out by the Supreme Court. The relevant part of the observation of the Supreme Court reads as follows : “This Court had on 9th December 2003 framed a scheme and laid down guidelines on the basis of which hawing was to be permitted in the City of Mumbai. These matters were then kept last week in order to oversee implementation. When these matters were listed last week, we were informed that some of the licensed hawkers had obtained from the Bombay High Court orders dated 16th April, 2004 and 23rd April 2004 wherein the Bombay High Court purports to interpret our above mentioned order. We do not intend to comment on the patently fallacious reasoning of the Bombay High Court. We clearly that Bombay Court orders shall no longer apply. On a plain reading of our order dated 9th December 2003 it is clear that the Bombay High Court has gone wrong. We were also informed that one other party had also obtained an order from some other Court in Mumbai. We, therefore, feel it necessary to clarify that this Court is framing a scheme for hawking. Thus only this Court will hereinafter deal with this aspect. No other Court shall either interpret orders of this Court or pass any orders contrary to the orders of this Court. If any clarifications are required they must be obtained from this Court. Also if any party feels aggrieved by the effect of an order of this Court then the remedy of that party will be to approach this Court for a clarification or variation.” 3. In the same order the Supreme Court issued the following directions: “We clarify that neither our order dated 9th December, 2003 nor this order shall affect parties, who prior to our orders, had obtained in their favours an order from any competent Court. Those orders would continue to apply qua those persons only unless they are got vacated or are set aside.” 4. Subsequently in a further judgment dated 12th February 2007, the Supreme Court issued the following directions: “We would like to reiterate that no other Court shall interpret the order of this Court or pass any order touching upon the subject matter dealt with by this Court concerning the issues in hand. Any writ Petition pending in any High Court on the same subject shall remain stayed. If any clarification / modifications are required, the same must be obtained from this Court.” 5. At this stage, it is necessary to note that a Division Bench of this Court, had on 31st July 2008, disposed of the Petition challenging a Notice issued by the Collector on 16th May 2008, as withdrawn on a statement by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Hawkers Union that the Petitioners therein, would move the Supreme Court. Mr. Grover, Counsel for the Petitioners states that an I.A. for clarification has, as a matter of fact, been filed before the Supreme Court. That is stated to be pending. 6. Judicial discipline demands that, the directions of the Supreme Court, should be strictly and effectively complied with. The Supreme Court having observed that no other Court shall interpret the order of the Supreme Court or pass any order, touching upon the subject matter dealt with by the Supreme Court concerning the issues in hand, this Petition cannot be entertained. The Contempt Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the Petitioner to seek recourse to its remedies. It is, of course, necessary for this Court to observe that the Court has had no question to adjudicate upon the merits of the rival contentions. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)