Street vendors: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.
Policies, laws, court judgements
2016: traders, ‘colony’ residents unhappy with Delhi policy
The Times of India, January 17, 2016
Revised vendors' law: RWAs, traders see red
Days after the state government notified the amended policy for the rehabilitation of street vendors in the city, traders' bodies and resident welfare associations said the notification was issued in a hurry without “proper public consultation“. The revised policy was notified on January 6, after a delay of almost two years following the intervention of the Delhi HC.
While the revised policy has largely incorporated all the suggestions made by National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI), vendor organisations said it doesn't address some of their main concerns. However, they want the government to start the implementation process.“We will seek amendments in the policy.
In the previous policy , NASVI's main objection was he ban on roadside cooking.The government removed the clause in the revised Act.
However, traders said the new policy will result in chaos n the city markets. “They have removed all the crucial ponts. Now, vendors can leave heir goods in the open and his is a serious security threat. The Master Plan-2021 does not allow informal sector to work on arterial roads, as it can lead to traffic jams. Moreover, roadside cooking should be banned. The government should rather set up food haats,“ said Sanjay Bhargava, general secretary , Chandni Chowk sarvvyaparmandal.
The traders also want the government to limit the number of vendors, especially in markets. “At present, vendors have outnumbered shopkeepers. Sarojini Nagar market is in a mess. The situation will get worse if the new policy is implemented,“ said Pramod Sharma, president of Sarojini Nagar market association.
Meanwhile, the residents too are an unhappy lot. They felt the government did not consider their views while finalising the policy . “How can the government go through so many suggestions or objections in a short time span? It should have spent time on public consultation, as the issue will affect every Delhiite. Also, this policy will be a test to check the government's resolve to bring down the pollution level, as vendors, who often set up shops outside schools, hospitals and markets, lead to massive traffic jams. The government should have pushed for zero-tolerance zones,“ said Rajiv Kakria, social activist and a resident of GK-I.
The Delhi government officials said, “We can't make everyone happy . We had to notify the policy , as the high court had ordered us. Else, it would be a contempt of court. Now, if anyone has a problem, he or she can approach the court.“
Civic bodies can remove vendors from streets: HC
The high court allowed civic agencies to remove vendors from areas designated as nohawking zones prior to the 2014 Street Vending Act.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal modified its earlier order, where it had said no street vendor should be evicted without following due process of law.
HC underlined that even the 2014 Act prohibits vending activities in non-vending areas and asked the Delhi government and New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to explain steps being taken to ensure the Act is implemented.
“Having regard to the fact that declaration of non-squatting zones or non-vending zones is not inconsistent with provisions of the Act of 2014, we consider it appropriate to direct as an interim measure that non-squatting zones declared under the schemes prior to enforcement of the Act shall continue to be nonsquatting zones for the time being so as to balance the larger interest of general public,“ the bench observed in its order.
The court was hearing petitions filed by a hawkers association and Congress leader Ajay Maken, challenging NDMC and the three corporation's action against vendors in central Delhi and Lajpat Nagar market.
HC also rejected NDMC's claim that it should have an independent scheme to survey , noting that “on a combined reading of the Act and Rules it appears to us that only one scheme has to be framed by appropriate government for entire national capital territory of Delhi in consultation with local authorities and town vending committees.“
Civic agencies had on Tu esday maintained that nonvending zones had been identified prior to the 2014 Act and these should continue to be free of encroachments by vendors even if the new scheme under the latest Act is yet to be brought out. They had also raised security concerns over “unrestricted movement“ or squatting of street vendors anywhere in the capital, especially during the festive season.
SC rules out leniency on eviction of vendors
Says Unauthorised Zones Should Be Cleared
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea by Delhi Congress chief Ajay Maken challenging the eviction of hawkers from no-vending zones in the capital.
The former Union minister had approached the apex court assailing a recent Delhi high court order allowing civic agencies and Delhi Police to evictbook unauthorised vendors. But a bench of Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra upheld the HC order of October 5 that had asked the three corporations, New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and the AAP government to remove vendors from unauthorised zones.
The bench reminded Maken that “some semblance“ of streamlining of hawkers and vendors is necessary and pointed out that is exactly what the HC bench had directed.
Appearing for Maken, senior lawyers Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rakesh Khanna urged the court to stay the HC order and alleged that the agencies were harassing even those vendors who operate in authorised zones.
NDMC counsel Yoginder Handoo opposed Maken's allegations. The corporations and NDMC had earlier this month started removing unauthorised hawkers from pavements, footpaths and Metro station ga tes, apart from market places, such as Lajpat Nagar Central Market.
On October 5, the HC had ordered that the civic agencies can evict hawkers from no-vending zones. It said non-squatting zones identified prior to the enactment of the Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending Act should be kept free of encroachments.
Maken alleged that the civic bodies had evicted the vendors despite a Delhi government scheme stating that no hawkers would be removed till the survey of existing vendors and issuance of Certificate of Vending was done. He had sought a direction from the court to the agencies based on these submissions.
Later, he had also sought a review of the HC order, but the bench had declined and reminded the petitioners that the court “cannot go on reviewing our order.“
==Vendors Cannot Leave Goods At Place Of Hawking Overnight: SC April 16, 2022: The Times of India
New Delhi: A hawker cannot keep his goods and wares at the place of hawking overnight as it is in violation of the hawking policy, and in case a hawker does so, the goods can be seized by police or municipal authorities, the Supreme Court has said, upholding a Delhi high court order passed against one hawker. The HC has passed a series of orders on the pleas of various hawkers. The latest HC order, disallowing keeping of their goods at the place of hawking, was passed in January this year by dismissing a plea of Mohan Lal, a hawker of Sarojini Nagar market. Lal moved the HC seeking direction to municipal authorities to allow him to leave his goods at the place of hawking overnight as civic officials were insisting that he remove goods from the area of allotment once the activity of hawking was over in the night. The HC, however, turned down his plea and referred to its various orders passed earlier on the issue. The court referred to its 2016 order by which it was held that no goods are to be left at the site and the goods should be re-
moved and cleared at the end of the day every day.
"In our view, the relief sought in the writ petition is completely misconceived. It goes against the very concept of hawking to permit the hawker to occupy any given area on a permanent basis, i. e. day and night. The whole concept of hawking is that the hawker comes to the allotted/demarcated area during the hours of hawking with his or her goods and wares; undertakes the activity of hawking and leaves the area along with his or her goods and wares at the end of the hawking period. In fact, in respect of mobile hawkers even this much is not permitted," the HC said in its January 12 order.
Lal then moved the Supreme Court, challenging the HC order, but he could not convince the apex court and his appeal was dismissed.
A bench of justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said that the- re was no error in the HC order and the municipal authority must act as per the hawking policy.
"The prayer before the high court was that the petitioner, who is a hawker in the Sarojini Nagar Market, be permitted to leave his goods and wares at the place of hawking overnight. The said prayer has been rightly rejected by the high court. Any hawker can be permitted to hawk in the market only as per the hawking policy and not de hors the same. The petitioner, being a hawker, has no right to insist that he may be permitted to keep his goods and wares at the place where he is hawking overnight. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the high court. The authority concerned must act as per the hawking policy," the apex court said in its order.