Swiggy, Zomato delivery from illegal eating outlets: Bombay High Court directs removal of BPCL, HPCL as parties

The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association to remove Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) as parties to the plea raising grievance against food delivery apps Swiggy, Zomato and Dunzo for delivering food from illegal and unauthorised outlets..On a specific query of the Court, Advocate Veena Thadani for the Association stated that the petroleum corporations were arrayed as parties because they had supplied cylinders for commercial purposes under the garb of domestic use.The Bench of Justices AA Sayed and Abhay Ahuja opined that the grievance did not take into consideration the fact that some outlets operating out of homes may be using domestic cylinders which had been legally provided to them.Unsatisfied by the justification, the Bench directed the petitioner to remove the two public sector undertakings as parties as it was not inclined to pass any "blanket orders"..Thadani made the following submissions during the course of the hearing:That a majority of the vendors did not have appropriate licenses;The vendors operated from bare minimum spaces in the most unhygienic conditions;That despite pointing out the mishap to the civic authorities, no action has been taken;That the vehicles being utilized for food delivery are registered with the regional transport authorities for personal use, but are being utilised for commercial purposes..The Bench mused why the petitioners did not opt for a public interest litigation instead of a writ petition. To this, Thadani responded that the petition had been filed for the private and commercial interest of the members of the petitioner association. She added that none except licensed restaurant holders had any interest in the present issue, and hence, it did not warrant for a public interest litigation. .Justice Sayed noted that the petition did not enumerate the unlicensed restaurants against whom the action was sought.In order to avoid passing an open-ended order which could be misinterpreted, the Bench asked the petitioner to add a few names of restaurants which do not hold licenses so that appropriate orders can be issued against them..Government Pleader Poornima Kantharia opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had not paid the requisite court fees considering the fact that the association had filed a petition on behalf of its members. Thadani assured the Court that the Association would place a list of the members which had passed the resolution to file the present petition and pay the requisite court fees before the next hearing date. .Before concluding the hearing, the Bench asked counsel for Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) if there was a policy in place against unauthorised and illegal eating places located within their jurisdiction. The BMC is required to apprise the Court about the same on the next date of hearing.