JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties. The challenge raised in this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the communication dated 6th December 2022, by which the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has upheld its action of cancelling the Hawking License issued to the petitioner for breach of conditions therein. A challenge is also raised to the communication dated 27th December 2022, by which the petitioner has been informed that his representation / application dated 4th July 2022 seeking permission to sell Pani-Puri, Bhel-Puri and Ragda items under the license in question has been rejected. 2. Facts that are undisputed on record are that the petitioner was issued a Hawker's License by the Municipal Corporation on 6th February 2004. The same was extended from time to time. During the course of inspection carried out by the Authorities of the Municipal Corporation, it was noticed that the petitioner was not present at the given site where he was to operate the license and that terms and conditions of the said license were not being followed. In response to the Inspection Report dated 27th June 2022, the petitioner submitted his say on 4th July 2022. On the same day, the petitioner moved another application seeking addition to the items that he was permitted to hawk under the earlier license. The Municipal Corporation however, in the light of its Inspection Report, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 5th September 2022 as to why his Hawker's License should not be cancelled for breach of the terms and conditions under which it was issued. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice on 7th September 2022 and denied the statements made in the said notice. The petitioner's response was not found to be satisfactory and hence action of cancelling Hawker's License was taken on 7th October 2022. The petitioner challenged the order dated 7th October 2022 by filing Writ Petition (Lodging) No.32254 of 2022. On 11th October 2022, the said order dated 7th October 2022 was set aside on the ground that it was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Municipal Corporation was directed to give personal hearing to the petitioner and take a decision thereafter. On 11th October 2022, the said order dated 7th October 2022 was set aside on the ground that it was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Municipal Corporation was directed to give personal hearing to the petitioner and take a decision thereafter. Similarly, the petitioner's representation dated 4th July 2022 was also directed to be considered. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing on 9th November 2022. After considering the record as well as the stand of the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, on 6th December 2022, held that there was no case made out by the petitioner for revisiting the order of cancellation of the petitioner's Hawker's License. That action was thus upheld. The petitioner therefore approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.34 of 2023, raising a challenge to the order dated 6th December 2022. On 19th December 2022, this Court passed the following order :- '.After arguing the matter for some time, when we had shown disinclination for grant of reliefs prayed for in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the representation made by the petitioner dated 4th July 2022 be directed to be decided within a prescribed time. 2. Representation of the petitioner dated 4th July 2022 be decided by the Municipal Corporation within a period of two weeks from today as per law and strictly on its own merits. 3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.' 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner's representation dated 4th July 2022 was considered and by a communication dated 27th December 2022, the Assistant Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation informed the petitioner that his representation / application dated 4th July 2022 was rejected for the reason that under the license issued under Section 313-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short "Act of 1888") and as per the policy of the Municipal Corporation, commodities such as Pani-Puri, Bhel-Puri and Ragda items were not permitted to be sold. It is this communication dated 27th December 2022 that is sought to be challenged in the present Writ Petition. In addition, a challenge is also raised to the order dated 6th December 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner refusing to set aside cancellation of the petitioner's Hawker's License. 5. Mr. It is this communication dated 27th December 2022 that is sought to be challenged in the present Writ Petition. In addition, a challenge is also raised to the order dated 6th December 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner refusing to set aside cancellation of the petitioner's Hawker's License. 5. Mr. Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the challenge to the order dated 6th December 2022, vide prayer clause (a), was not being pursued for the reason that the said order had been challenged in the earlier Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was only pursuing the present Writ Petition insofar as challenge to the order dated 27th December 2022 in the matter of seeking permission to sell additional commodities was refused. According to him, the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation in the impugned order was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1888. In that regard, the learned Senior Advocate referred to various provisions of the Act of 1888 and especially Sections 313A, 394(1)(e) as well as Part IV Schedule M to the Act of 1888. Inviting attention to the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, (for short 'Act of 2014'), it was submitted that with the coming into force of this Central Act, the provisions of Section 313A of the Act of 1888 stood eclipsed to that extent in view of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. He referred to the provisions of Section 2(l), Section 4 and Section 27 of the Act of 2014 to urge that the Municipal Corporation was not justified in seeking to harass and prevent the petitioner from selling Pani-Puri, Bhel-Puri and Ragda items as per his application dated 4th July 2022. It was thus submitted that on a proper consideration of the legal provisions, the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation in the context of Section 313A of the Act of 1888 was untenable and the petitioner's application dated 4th July 2022 was liable to be granted. Reference was made to the following decisions to urge that the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation was not in accordance with law : (i) Maharashtra Ekta Hawkwers Union and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 151 (ii) Maharashtra Ekta Hawkwers Union and Ors. Vs. Reference was made to the following decisions to urge that the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation was not in accordance with law : (i) Maharashtra Ekta Hawkwers Union and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 151 (ii) Maharashtra Ekta Hawkwers Union and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 490 (iii) Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5546 (iv) Azad Hawkers Union and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/MH/2574/2017 (v) Bombay Hawkers Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., along with connected matter 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 4709. 6. Mr. Narendra V. Walawalkar, learned Senior Advocate for the Municipal Corporation opposed the aforesaid submissions. At the outset, he submitted that the order dated 6th December 2022 cancelling the license issued to the petitioner having been challenged in the earlier writ petition and this Court having expressed its disinclination to consider that challenge, it was not permissible to agitate the same prayer in a fresh writ petition. The grounds that were available for raising such challenge in the earlier writ petition could not now be permitted to be raised on principles analogues to the principles of res judicata. Most of the grounds, except Grounds A, B and O were distinct from the grounds that were raised in the earlier writ petition. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 313A and Section 394 of the Act of 1888 were distinct in their operation. The license in question had been granted to the petitioner under Section 313A of the Act of 1888, while the reliance placed by the petitioner on Part IV, Schedule M of the Act of 1888 was related to Section 394 of the Act of 1888. The petitioner had not made any application seeking grant of license under Section 394 of the Act of 1888 and if such application was made by the petitioner, his request for sale of items such as Pani-Puri, Bhel-Puri and Ragda items could be considered on merits. The Municipal Corporation was justified in taking the stand that the aforesaid items could not be permitted to be sold under the license issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888. The Municipal Corporation was justified in taking the stand that the aforesaid items could not be permitted to be sold under the license issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888. It was then submitted that despite filing an appeal for challenging the order dated 6th December 2022, the petitioner subsequently withdrew that appeal and hence the order dated 6th December 2022 had attained finality. In absence of any existing license with the petitioner, there was no question of considering the request of the petitioner for addition of those items to the license. It would be necessary for the petitioner to make a fresh application seeking license under Section 394 of the Act of 1888, if he desired to sell the items referred to in his representation dated 4th July 2022. As regards the contention raised, based on the provisions of the Act of 2014, it was submitted that the petitioner had not applied for issuance of license under the Act of 2014. It was thus submitted that the petitioner's representation had been rightly rejected on 27th December 2022 since the additional items could not be sold under a license under Section 313A of the Act of 1888. It was prayed that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 7. An interim application has been filed seeking impleadment in the present proceedings by Khyber Hotel Corporation through its Sole Proprietor-Sudheer Bahl. In the said application, it has been stated that at the behest of the applicant, who had made complaints in the matter on 24th March 2022 and 27th July 2022, the Municipal Authorities had conducted inspection of the site in question, where the petitioner was operating the Hawker's License. The applicant therefore ought to be heard in the matter since the petitioner's activities, which were beyond the terms and conditions of the license, were affecting the applicant's business premises. 8. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in rejoinder sought to highlight the distinction between the provisions of Section 313A and Section 394 of the Act of 1888 to urge that the word 'hawk', as found in Section 313A, was absent in Section 394 of the Act of 1888. Section 394 referred to the expression 'articles' or 'trades'. 8. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in rejoinder sought to highlight the distinction between the provisions of Section 313A and Section 394 of the Act of 1888 to urge that the word 'hawk', as found in Section 313A, was absent in Section 394 of the Act of 1888. Section 394 referred to the expression 'articles' or 'trades'. He also opposed the application for intervention by urging that the applicant was not entitled to intervene in the proceedings, which were primarily between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation. 9. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties at length and we have perused the documents filed by them. We have also heard the learned counsel for the applicant seeking intervention since he had made complaints against the petitioner with the Municipal Authorities. Insofar as prayer clause (a) in the writ petition is concerned, the same is not being pressed by the petitioner in the light of the statement made in that regard by the learned Senior Advocate. The order dated 6th December 2022, cancelling the petitioner's Hawker's License No.795304538 has thus attained finality. As a result, this Hawker's License issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888 is no longer in existence. Prior to cancellation of this license on 6th December 2022, the petitioner had, on 4th July 2022, made an application seeking permission to add commodities such as Pani-Puri, Bhel-Puri and Ragda items in the said license. That request has been rejected by the impugned communication dated 27th December 2022 by stating that under the license issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888, those commodities are not permitted to be sold. Before considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the view of the Municipal Corporation that the aforesaid commodities cannot be sold under a license issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888, it will have to be noted that the subject license, that had been issued under Section 313A, now stands cancelled by virtue of the order dated 6th December 2022. The question of permitting any commodities to be added to the Hawker's License issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888 would arise only if such license is existing and operating. The question of permitting any commodities to be added to the Hawker's License issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888 would arise only if such license is existing and operating. While it is true that on 4th July 2022, when the petitioner sought addition of the aforesaid commodities in Hawking License No.795304538, that license was being operated. However, the very same license now stands cancelled in view of the order dated 6th December 2022. Unless there is an existing license standing in the name of the petitioner, issued either under Section 313A or for that matter under Section 394 of the Act of 1888, there would be no question of considering the request of the petitioner for addition of additional commodities in such license. In other words, as of today, there is no license in existence, to which the commodities that were proposed to be added by the petitioner by his application dated 4th July 2022 could be added. We therefore find that, in these facts, it would be an academic exercise to consider whether it is permissible to add items like Pani-Puri, Bhel-Puri and Ragda items to a Hawker's License issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888. On the other hand, we find the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation appropriate that it would be necessary for the petitioner to first have a license issued in his name to enable him to sell the additional commodities, as proposed by him. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find it necessary in the facts of the present case to consider the challenge raised by the petitioner to the communication dated 27th December 2022, stating that commodities such as Pani-Puri, Bhel-Puri and Ragda items cannot be sold on a license issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888. We find that the interest of justice would be served by permitting the petitioner, if he so desires, to make a fresh application for grant of Hawker's License under the Act of 1888 for permission to sell the aforesaid items. We may observe that if such application is moved by the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation would be duty-bound to consider the same in accordance with law. We may observe that if such application is moved by the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation would be duty-bound to consider the same in accordance with law. Hence, by keeping the question raised by the petitioner as regards the additional commodities proposed to be sold under the license issued under Section 313A of the Act of 1888 open for being raised, if such occasion arises in future, for the present, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Rule accordingly. The Interim Application is also disposed of.