Read Time: 07 minutes

Hearing arguments on a plea filed by a street food vendor from Ahmedabad city, the Gujarat High Court came down heavily upon the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) for their alleged selective seizure of stalls selling non-vegetarian food. Court said, "How dare you pick up people discriminately?"

However, the Counsel for AMC attempted to clarify before the bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav that the Corporation wasn't adopting a pick and choose policy.

He also undertook before the Court that in case the petitioners approach the Corporation for the purpose of releasing their carts, goods & materials within 24 hours after such seizing, their cases would be dealt with in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

When the bench wondered as to how could people be prevented from eating what they want to eat, the counsel for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner's apprehension that non-veg food sellers are being singled out and their stalls are being removed from the roads is misconceived. He added that encroachment is being removed to enforce traffic regulations only as the roads were found blocked entirely by such encroachment. 

He also submitted that AMC was just clearing the roads in case of encroachment by the street vendors causing hindrance to public traffic and obstruction to the public roads and the questioned drive is only being undertaken in accordance with the law without any special preference to a particular group of people.

The bench seemed furious taking note of the petitioners' plea that they had been arbitrarily prohibited from selling non-vegetarian food on the streets of Ahmedabad. They had alleged that their handcarts had been seized by the municipal corporation, claiming that such dishes hurt religious sentiments.

Upon hearing the petitioners' plea, the Court made several serious remarks. Court said, 

"People are selling omelets, eggs, and overnight you decide to pick them and throw them away because the party in power decides so?"

Court added, "Just because the party in power says that it wants people to stop eating eggs, you will pick the food stall owners and throw them away? How dare you discriminate between people? Don't undertake this drive to satisfy the ego of some people." 

Expressing dissatisfaction with the submissions of AMC's counsel that the Corporation is taking action only in those cases where the cart/stall are causing hindrance to pedestrians or public traffic, the court said, 

“How can you decide what people should eat? Suddenly because someone in power thinks that this is what they want to do? Tomorrow you will decide what I should eat outside my house?”

Court further stressed, "If party in power says that we don’t want people to eat eggs, will you pick the stalls selling egg and throw them away?"

However, in response to court's this query, the AMC counsel submitted that he was not representing any political party, he was representing State only and he had a written submission on behalf of AMC stating that there is not a single incident where such kind of discrimination was done.

He also added that the State cannot take such an action, there is no logic to this. 

Accordingly, taking note of the submission made by AMC's counsel and his undertaking that on petitioners' application within 24 hours of the seizure, AMC would deal with it as per law, the bench disposed of the matter. 

Case Title: Dilip Gatubhai Roat v. State of Gujarat