Any policy in place to regulate ‘illegal’ eating outlets operating via delivery apps? HC asks BMC

The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to respond as to whether there is a policy on eateries and food outlets without required licenses, which operate through food delivery companies.

Bombay High Court (File)

THE BOMBAY High Court on Monday asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to respond as to whether there is a policy on eateries and food outlets without required licenses, which operate through food delivery companies.

🗞️ Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to access the best Election reporting and analysis 🗞️

This came after the court was told by the petitioner, the Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (commonly known as AHAR), that food delivery companies including apps such as Swiggy, Zomato and Dunzo among others are allegedly delivering food from illegal eating outlets to customers.

Story continues below this ad

The plea had claimed that the food delivery apps were picking up food from outlets working from homes, which are not complying with fire safety guidelines among other violations of Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act.

Read | BMC to form Climate Cell to implement action plan

A division bench of Justice A A Sayed and Justice Abhay Ahuja refused to pass any blanket order against food delivery service providers and asked the petitioner to make some of the unlicensed eateries as parties to the case.

The petitioner association claimed its members had invested lakhs of rupees to run their restaurant businesses and had obtained all mandatory licenses complying with statutory rules from time to time.

However, during Covid-19 lockdown, a few unauthorised and illegal eating houses increased their business activities and new illegal eating places were put up across Mumbai, the plea claimed.

Story continues below this ad

The association claimed that no action was taken against such outlets despite them writing to concerned authorities and therefore it has filed a writ petition in the high court.

Government Pleader Purnima H Kantharia for the state government opposed the plea.

After the court queried as to why the petitioner association did not file a PIL instead of filing a writ petition, advocate Veena Thadani for the association said the plea was in private interest of only licensed restaurants and none else is concerned and therefore a writ plea.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram