In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that the 2018 circular issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) prohibiting the cooking of food on footpaths using gas, stoves, or grills does not extend to food stalls employing electric induction vessels. The Court made this observation while hearing an ongoing legal dispute, emphasizing that the circular—aimed at preventing safety risks and public nuisance—does not explicitly include electric cooking appliances such as induction cookers.

Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla, before whom the matter was listed, intervened to protect the livelihood of an ex-army personnel who was being restrained from selling fish prepared using an electronic induction vessel.

The  judge  carefully examined the language of the circular and the nature of induction cooking and stated,  “Further, what is prevented by the said Circular is cooking of eatables on a footpath/road with the help of gas/stove, Grill. The Petitioner is not cooking on a footpath or road but in a Jai Jawan stall. Further, the Petitioner is not using gas/grill but an electric induction vessel.” 

Facts:

The Petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman and a war-disabled veteran of the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars, had been granted a license permitting the operation of a “Jai Jawan” stall for selling fish fry. The Petitioner  filed the present Petition seeking to quash the Order dated 14th August, 2019 issued by the Senior Inspector (License), H/West Ward of Respondent No.1.

By the said Order, the Petitioner was directed to stop the business of frying fish at his licensed stall, failing which his license would be cancelled. The Order dated 14th August, 2019 was issued on the basis of a Circular of Respondent No.1 for the year 2018-19. 

The Inspection Report dated 4th January, 2018, prepared by the License Inspector, records that the Petitioner was found selling fish fry, which is an  approved and licensed commodity. A subsequent Inspection Report dated 22nd January, 2019, further notes that the Petitioner was selling fish fry using an electric induction vessel. These reports clearly established that the Petitioner had been carrying on the business of selling fish fry from his Jai Jawan stall for several years under the permission granted by Respondent No.1.

The said Circular pertained  to a change in the nature of business, which was not applicable  to the Petitioner’s case. As evidenced by the documents on record, the Petitioner had already been selling fish fry prior to the issuance of the Circular.

The court stated, “In these circumstances, in my view, the direction given to the Petitioner by the Order dated 14th August, 2019, to stop the business of frying fish in the stall is illegal and is not as per the said Circular.”

Based on these observations, the bench instructed the civic body not to hinder or obstruct Singh from conducting his business.

Appearance:

Adv. Jacob Kadantot for the Petitioner. Adv. Vaishali Ugale i/b Adv. Komal Punjabi for Respondents- BMC.

Case Title: Rajinder Singh Sohan Singh vs The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. (Writ Petition 3004 of 2019)