13 September 2004
Supreme Court
Download

GAINDA RAM Vs M.C.D. .

Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, , ,
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-001699-001699 / 1987
Diary number: 61421 / 1987
Advocates: K. N. RAI Vs INDRA SAWHNEY


1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. Nos.1, 3 & 4 in I.A. No.1 in I.A. No.407 &

I.A. Nos.9 & 10 in I.A. No.407  IN W.P.(C) NO.1699 OF 1987

Gainda Ram and others  ...Petitioner(s)  Versus  

M.C.D. and others   ...Respondent(s)

LETTER NO.34/PS/NDMC/2009 DATED 06.03.2009 received  from Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur, DHJS, Presiding Officer,  Zonal Vending Committee, NDMC in I.A. 1 in I.A.  

No.407 in W.P.(C) No.1699/1987  WITH

I.A. Nos.2 & 3 in I.A. No. 407 in W.P. (Civil) No.1699/1987 I.A. Nos.4 & 5 in I.A. No. 407 in W.P. (Civil) No.1699/1987 I.A. No.6 in I.A. No. 407 in W.P. (Civil) No.1699/1987 I.A. Nos.7 & 8 in I.A. No. 407 in W.P. (Civil) No.1699/1987

WITH W.P.(Civil) No.77 of 2010

And I. A. Nos. 211, 212 & 213 IN C.A. No.560 of 1998

J U D G M E N T GANGULY, J.

1. Hawking  on  the  streets  of  Delhi,  whose  

municipal  limits  have  expanded  over  the  

1

2

years,  has  been  the  subject  matter  of  

several  proceedings  in  this  Court.  

Initially  in  the  early  sixties,  this  

problem surfaced when this Court, hearing  

an appeal from a decision dated 4th August,  

1966  of  the  Punjab  High  Court,  Circuit  

Bench at Delhi, dealt with this question in  

some detail in the case of  Pyare Lal vs.  New Delhi Municipal Committee and another  [AIR 1968 SC 133].  In Pyare Lal (supra),  sale of cooked food on public streets which  

was  creating  the  problems  of  unhygienic  

conditions came up before this Court in the  

context of a resolution of the New Delhi  

Municipal Committee stopping such sale.  A  

three-Judge Bench of this Court held that  

no  person  carrying  on  the  aforesaid  

business  of  selling  cooked  food  has  any  

fundamental  right  to  carry  on  street  

vending  particularly  in  a  manner  which  

2

3

creates  unsanitary  and  unhygienic  

conditions in the neighbourhood.   

  

2. However,  the  controversy  did  not  rest  

there, nor did the problem of hawking come  

to an end in view of Pyare Lal’s judgment.  3. Several  cases  were  filed  thereafter  in  

different Courts and ultimately the leading  

decision was rendered in the case of Sodan  Singh and others vs.  New Delhi Municipal  Committee and others [(1989) 4 SCC 155] by  a Constitution Bench of this Court.

4. In Sodan Singh (supra) the petitioners, as  hawkers,  were  carrying  on  business  by  

squatting on the pavements of Delhi and New  

Delhi and those squatters alleged that they  

were allowed by the Municipality to carry  

on  such  business  on  payment  of  charges  

described  as  Tehbazari.  As  the  Municipal  

Authority  subsequently  refused  to  permit  3

4

them  to  continue  their  business,  that  

action  of  the  municipality  according  to  

those  petitioners,  interfered  with  their  

fundamental  right  to  carry  on  business  

under  Articles  19(1)(g)  and  21  of  the  

Constitution of India.  The correctness of  

the decision in Pyare Lal (supra) was also  doubted.   As  such  the  matter  was  placed  

before the Constitution Bench.     

5. In Sodan Singh (supra) there was a paradigm  shift by this Court on the interpretation  

of  fundamental  right  of  a  hawker  or  a  

squatter under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on  

business. Various judgments of this Court  

were  considered  and  in  paragraph  18  (at  

page  169  of  SCC)  Justice  Sharma  (as  His  

Lordship then was) delivering the majority  

judgment  expressly  held  by  referring  to  

Pyare Lal (supra) that, “we do not agree  with  these  observations.”   However,  His  

4

5

Lordship was quick to add that in the facts  

considered  in  Pyare  Lal (supra)  the  decision was correct.

  

6. In our judgment, the decision in Pyare Lal  (supra) was thus distinguished and confined  

to the facts of that case.

7. However, this Court in Sodan Singh (supra)  took a very broad view of a citizens right  

under  Article  19(1)(g)  following  its  

decisions  in  the  case  of  Fertilizer  Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri &  others vs.  Union  of  India  and  others  [(1981) 1 SCC 568] and also the decision of  

this  Court  in  K.  Rajendran  &  others vs.  State of Tamil Nadu & others [(1982) 2 SCC  273]  and  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Bombay  Hawkers’  Union  &  others versus  Bombay  Municipal  Corporation  &  others  [(1985)  3  SCC  528]  and  the  Constitution  

5

6

Bench decision of this Court in the case of  

Olga  Tellis  &  ors. vs.  Bombay  Municipal  Corporation & others [(1985) 3 SCC 545].   

8. This Court in  Sodan Singh (supra) came to  the  conclusion  that  the  hawkers  and  

squatters have a fundamental right to carry  

on business on the public street, but the  

same should be regulated.  It was further  

held  by  Justice  Sharma  (as  His  Lordship  

then was) that the right of a hawker to  

transact business, while going from place  

to place, is recognized in India for a long  

period.  Of course such right is subject to  

regulation since public streets demand its  

use by the public and the streets are not  

meant to facilitate some citizens to carry  

on  any  private  business.   However,  such  

right of hawking for carrying on business  

on the street cannot be denied if they are  

properly regulated.  The learned Judge made  

6

7

it  very  clear  that  the  said  right  is  

subject  to  reasonable  restrictions  under  

Clause  (6)  of  Article  19.   The  learned  

Judge relying on the ratio in Saghir Ahmad  and another vs.  State of U.P. and others  [AIR  1954  SC  728]  held  that  streets  in  

India are vested in the municipality and  

they have to be used by the municipalities  

as  trustees.  The  learned  Judge  while  

delivering the judgment observed:-

“We  as  a  court  in  a  welfare  State  do  realise the hardship to which many of the  petitioners  may  be  exposed  if  they  are  prevented  from  carrying  on  the  business.  The only solution for this is the adoption  of  the  policy  of  full  employment,  which  even according to leading economists like  Keynes will alleviate the problems of the  unemployed to some extent. But as students  of  economics  we  also  realise  that  every  human  activity  has  the  ‘optimum  point’  beyond  which  it  becomes  wholly  unproductive. It is for the government to  take reasonable steps to prevent movement  of people from rural areas to urban areas.  That  can  be  done  by  the  development  of  urban centres in rural areas removed from  each other at least by one hundred miles.  This is more a matter of executive policy  than for judicial fiat. We hope and trust  that in administering the laws in force the  authorities  will  keep  in  view  humane  considerations…”

7

8

9. Justice Kuldip Singh, in a concurring but a  

different  opinion,  interpreted  the  right  

under Article 19(1)(g) as comprehensively  

as possible to include all the avenues and  

modes  through  which  a  man  earns  his  

livelihood excepting of course gambling and  

trafficking in women. The learned Judge’s  

interpretation  of  Article  19(1)(g)  if  we  

may  say  so,  with  respect,  is  remarkably  

brilliant.   His  Lordship  held,  “in  a  

nutshell the guarantee takes into its fold  

any  activity  carried  on  by  a  citizen  of  

India to earn his living. The activity of  

course  must  be  legitimate  and  not  anti-

social like gambling, trafficking in women  

and the like.  (See para 28 page 174 of the  

report).

10. The learned Judge referred to the decision  

in  Bombay Hawkers’ Union (supra) and also  to the decision of this Court in Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi vs.  Gurnam  Kaur  

8

9

[(1989)  1  SCC  101]  and  highlighted  the  

importance  of  framing  regulations  to  

regulate  hawking  business  by  creating  

hawking and non-hawking zones. The learned  

Judge  in  his  concurring  judgment  made  a  

very pertinent observation after comparing  

the  position  of  street  trading  in  India  

with that prevailing in other countries and  

noted that even in England where there is  

complete social security and the citizens  

are not driven to the streets to make out a  

living  out  of  poverty  and  sheer  

unemployment, street trading is recognized.  

Considering that an alarming percentage of  

population  in  our  country  lives  below  

poverty line, the learned Judge held that  

when  the  citizens  by  gathering  meager  

resources  try  to  employ  themselves  as  

hawkers and street traders, they cannot be  

subjected to a deprivation on the pretext  

that they have no right.  The learned Judge  

9

10

deplored that despite repeated suggestions  

by this Court, the Government has not yet  

framed regulations for regulating citizen’s  

right to carry on hawking business on the  

streets.

11. Subsequently, also again this Court had to  

deal with large number of petitions filed  

by  hawkers  claiming  a  right  to  carry  on  

business  in  different  parts  of  the  

pavements  under  the  control  of  Municipal  

Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and New Delhi  

Municipal Council (NDMC).

 

12. In  Sodan Singh (supra) this Court was of  the view that detailed provisions, dealing  

with all relevant aspects, and capable of  

solving the problems of hawking in a fair  

and equitable manner should be made and the  

respondents (municipal authorities) should  

proceed as soon as it may be possible. This  

10

11

Court felt that municipal authorities would  

be well advised to consider suggestions of  

the  hawkers  while  finalizing  the  schemes  

with due regard to the requirements of the  

relevant laws e.g. Delhi Police Act, 1978,  

the Delhi Control of Vehicular and other  

Traffic on Roads and Streets Regulations,  

1980 etc. The Constitution Bench in  Sodan  Singh (supra) clarified in paragraph 24 of  the  judgment  that  the  demand  of  the  

petitioners therein that the hawkers must  

be  permitted  on  every  road  in  the  city,  

could not be allowed, if the road was not  

wide  enough  to  conveniently  manage  the  

traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted  

at all, or may be sanctioned only once a  

week,  say  on  Sundays  when  the  rush  

considerably  thinned  out.  Hawking  could  

also  be  justifiably  prohibited  near  

hospitals  or  where  necessity  of  security  

measures  so  demanded.  The  demand  that  

11

12

permission to squat on a particular place  

must  be  on  a  permanent  basis  was  also  

rejected on the ground that circumstances  

were likely to change from time to time.

13. Pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble  

Court, a scheme was prepared by the NDMC  

vide its Resolution No. 28 dated 10.11.1989  

and  the  same  was  placed  before  the  Lok  

Adalat  held  at  this  Hon’ble  Court  on  

November 19, 1989.  Thereupon, a general  

order was passed by the Lok Adalat after  

going through the scheme submitted by NDMC  

on the guidelines laid down by this Court  

in  Sodan Singh (supra) for implementation  of the scheme. A committee consisting of  

two members of NDMC and a District Judge or  

a  Higher  Judicial  Officer  was  to  be  

constituted.  Decision  rendered  by  the  

committee was to be made binding and final.  

12

13

14. It was submitted before the Lok Adalat that  

the NDMC did not have sufficient land which  

belonged  to  the  Central  Government  and  

unless  the  Central  Government  allotted  

suitable land, the Municipal Committee was  

not in a position to accommodate all the  

hawkers/squatters as per the scheme.  The  

Lok  Adalat  accordingly  suggested  that  a  

request was to be made by the Legal Aid  

Committee to the Central Government for the  

allotment of land.  The NDMC as well was to  

approach  the  Central  Government  for  the  

allotment of suitable land in the areas in  

which  the  NDMC  could  go  ahead  with  this  

programme,  of  accommodating  these  

hawkers/squatters. These directions appear  

from the order of the Lok Adalat.  

15. The Judicial Officer for the committee was  

to be nominated with the concurrence of the  

High Court. Therefore, with the direction  

13

14

of this Hon’ble Court, a Judicial Officer  

(Shri G.P. Thareja) was nominated by the  

High Court to preside over the Committee  

which was constituted for looking into the  

matter  of  hawkers  in  the  NDMC  area.  

Thereupon, by an order dated 1st February  

1990,  this  Hon’ble  Court  directed  that  

because  the  Committee  which  had  been  

constituted  as  aforesaid  had  become  

functional, such Committee should proceed  

to examine the claims of hawkers.  As a  

matter of first lot, first 100 claims were  

to be taken up for examination in view of  

the  scheme  prepared  by  the  Municipal  

Committee in terms of the direction of the  

Court.

16. Appreciating the fact that since the work  

allotted to the Judicial Officer requires  

full  time  engagement,  this  Court  by  an  

order  dated  9.2.1990  issued  directions  

14

15

requesting the High Court to relieve the  

said  Judicial  Officer  who  was  appointed  

exclusively  for  the  work.  In  the  said  

order, directions were also given to the  

learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  to  

find  out  the  possibilities  of  assigning  

land to the Municipal Committee for making  

it available for hawking.

17. Thereafter, the said Thareja Committee gave  

its interim report to this Court and this  

Court in its order dated 29.1.1991 noticed  

the said interim report and found that 5000  

applications  were  pending  before  the  

Committee.

18. A complaint was made to this Court that the  

Thareja Committee was applying very strict  

norms  for  proof  of  eligibility.  However,  

this  Court  by  its  order  dated  13.3.1992  

rejected the said grievance. In order to  

15

16

protect  the  rights  of  the  genuine  

claimants, this Court, after discussing the  

report of the Thareja Committee, set out  

nine  directions.  Those  directions  are  as  

under:

“(1)Out  of  the  440  claimants,  the  one- member Thareja Committee will review the  cases of those claimants whose claims have  been  rejected  for  non-compliance  of  the  standard of proof laid down by Resolution  No.  28,  if  claimant  adduces  any  other  authentic proof in the form of government  or  local  authority  records,  the  genuineness whereof is unimpeachable, and  the  Committee  considers  such  proof  presented to it to be adequate for review.  If on perusal such proof is found to be  unacceptable, the Committee may refuse to  review its decision;

(2) In  regard  to  the  Sarojini  Nagar  claims, the Committee may evolve its own  criteria or standard of proof de hors the  one  laid  down  by  Resolution  No.  28  and  proceed to dispose of the claims on the  basis thereof. In doing so fresh claims,  if any, received may also be scrutinised;

(3) Public  advertisements  will  be  issued  by  the  Committee  in  local  newspapers  having  wide  circulation  inviting  claims  from  squatters/hawkers  who  have  not  preferred claims or filed proceedings in  court by a date to be stipulated therein,  such claims must of course be consistent  with the eligibility criteria laid down in  Resolution  No.  28.  In  addition  to  such  public  advertisement  to  be  issued  in  newspapers of different languages such as  English,  Hindi,  Urdu,  South-Indian  

16

17

languages, etc., to be determined by the  Committee,  handbills  and  pamphlets  shall  also be printed and distributed and pasted  in  different  parts  of  the  five  zones  selected  for  squatting/hawking  inviting  claims  by  the  stipulated  date.  The  advertisements/pamphlets,  etc.  will  also  cover claimants falling within directions  (1) and (2) above;

(4) The Registry of this Court will not  entertain  any  further  Writ  Petitions/Special Leave Petitions from any  squatter  or  hawker  concerning  the  sites  chosen  in  the  five  zones  mentioned  hereinabove  but  will  instead  direct  the  petitioners  to  approach  the  Thareja  Committee  if  they  have  moved  such  Writ  Petitions/Special  Leave  Petitions  before  the  date  stipulated  by  the  Committee  (which  date  will  be  communicated  to  the  Registry)  and  no  Writ  Petition/Special  Leave  Petition  or  any  other  proceeding  shall  be  entertained  by  the  Registry  concerning  the  sites  in  the  five  zones  after the stipulated date;

(5) The High Court of Delhi and all courts  subordinate thereto will also follow the  course of action set out in direction No.  4 hereinabove;

(6) All  Writ  Petitions/Civil  Appeals/  Special  Leave  Petitions  and  CMPs/IAs  therein which concern the five zones will  stand disposed of by this order except one  in which orders have been made from time  to  time  and  the  claimants  of  all  the  matters  disposed  of  pursuant  to  this  direction  will  be  at  liberty  to  seek  further directions in the one matter kept  pending  under  this  direction  as  interveners  in  case  such  need  arises  in  future. This is essential to regulate such  cases against NDMC;

17

18

(7) The interim stay orders will continue  in  respect  of  the  224  claimants  whose  claims  have  already  been  scrutinised  by  the  Committee.  In  respect  of  the  other  claimants  out  of  440  whose  claims  have  been  rejected  the  status  quo  will  be  maintained  for  two  months  after  the  stipulated  date  in  respect  of  those  claimants  who  have  sought  review  on  or  before the stipulated date. If during the  said period of two months the exercise for  review  cannot  be  completed,  the  authorities desirous of taking any action  will approach the Committee and seek its  approval.  If  the  Committee  is  of  the  opinion that there is no prima facie case  for review it may permit such action to be  taken  10  days  thereafter  so  that  the  claimant likely to be affected may in the  meantime  approach  the  Court  and  obtain  appropriate  orders.  In  respect  of  all  other  cases  the  interim  orders,  if  any,  will  continue  till  the  Committee  has  scrutinised their cases and rejected them.  Liberty is, however, reserved to NDMC to  move  for  vacating  any  order  if  public  interest so demands or it is found that  the claimant is in any way misusing it;

(8) The Tharjea Committee will draw up a  list of squatters/hawkers identified by it  as  entitled  to  protection  so  that  their  claims can be regulated in future also. In  drawing up the list care should be taken  to  ensure  that  one  and  the  same  person  does not secure a double benefit; and

(9) The Committee may also draw up a list  of squatters/hawkers on the basis of their  actual standing for being accommodated in  future as and when there is a vacancy in  the available space in the five zones or  when such space is expanded or new space  within  the  five  zones  is  cleared  for  squatting/hawking. The Committee will also  suggest sites within the zones, over and  above those already identified, which can  

18

19

be  made  available  to  accommodate  such  surplus  squatters/hawkers  who  cannot  be  accommodated in the five zones on account  of paucity of space.”

19. In the meantime, several cases were filed  

before  this  Court.  From  the  judgment  of  

this Court in  Saudan Singh etc. etc. vs.  NDMC  and  others  etc.  etc.,  (1992)  2  SCC  458, it appears that it was dealing with  

Article  32  petitions  along  with  some  

Special Leave Petitions filed impugning the  

order  of  the  Delhi  High  Court.  In  that  

judgment, this Court after considering the  

ratio of Sodan Singh (supra) laid down the  principle  relating  to  and  reasonable  

restrictions on street trading, as follows:

“It is, therefore, settled law that every  citizen has a right to the use of a public  street  vested  in  the  State  as  a  beneficiary but this right is subject to  such reasonable restrictions as the State  may  choose  to  impose.  Street-trading  is  albeit a fundamental right under Article  19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution  but  it  is  subject  to  reasonable  restrictions  which  the State may choose to impose by virtue  of  clause  (6)  of  Article  19  of  the  Constitution. The right to street-trading  under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution  does  not,  however,  extend  to  a  citizen  

19

20

occupying  or  squatting  on  any  specific  place  of  his  choice  on  the  pavement  regardless  of  the  rights  of  others,  including pedestrians, to make use of the  pavements.  In  other  words  the  law  laid  down by the Constitution Bench permits a  citizen to hawk on the street pavements by  moving from one place to another without  being  stationary  on  any  part  of  the  pavement vested in the State. After laying  down the law on the point in the context  of  Articles  14,  19  and  21  of  the  Constitution,  the  Constitution  Bench  remitted  all  the  petitions  to  a  proper  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  for  final  disposal.” (See para 2)

20. In  Saudan Singh (supra), this Court took  note  of  the  appointment  of  Thareja  

Committee as well as the salient features  

of NDMC scheme. These features, noted by  

this Court, run as under:

“(A) A  squatter  up  to  1977  shall  be  eligible  for  the  allotment  of  a  stall/kiosk while the squatters pertaining  to  the  years  1978  till  1980  shall  be  eligible  for  Tehbazari  site,  if  no  shop/kiosk  is  available.  The  squatters  squatting since between 1981 to 1987 shall  be  considered  for  allotment  for  a  Tehbazari site subject to availability of  vacant space. (B) The eligibility of a squatter shall be  determined by documents such as receipts  issued by the NDMC, Challans by Police and  Toleration Permission etc. (C) Only  non-licensable  trades  excluding  sophisticated  luxury  items,  imported  or  smuggled  goods  shall  be  permitted  i.e.  

20

21

pan,  biri,  cigarettes,  chana,  moongfali,  hosiery  items,  toys,  small  stationery  items, lottery tickets, fresh vegetables,  uncut  fruits,  packed  bakery  items  etc.  will be allowed. No cooking and sale of  food items exposed to dust causing health  hazards  shall  be  allowed.  Open  space  measuring 6" x 4" for doing non-licensable  trades and 4" x 3" for the trade of pan,  biri, cigarettes will be allowed. (D) Not  more  than  one  member  of  the  family, as defined by the NDMC, will be  eligible for benefit under the Scheme. (E) The  following  percentage  shall  be  allowed for the purpose of reservation in  the allotment.

(a) General Category 60% (b) Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe 12-1/2% (c) Physically Handicapped 10% (d) Ex-serviceman 2-1/2% (e) War Widows 2% (f) Freedom Fighters 3% (g) Extreme Hardship and Humanitarian

grounds 10%.”

21. In paragraph 10 of the judgment in  Saudan  Singh (supra), this Court observed that it  was dealing with the question of livelihood  

and survival of a large number of families  

and in such a situation the Court should  

adopt  a  compassionate  approach  so  as  to  

ensure that genuine hawkers/squatters are  

21

22

not denied their daily bread at the altar  

of technicalities, while at the same time  

ensuring that those who are out to exploit  

and  abuse  the  process  of  law  do  not  

succeed. To achieve these objectives, the  

Court  gave  certain  directions  which  were  

set out hereinabove.

22. The  Court  also  gave  directions  about  

hawkers/squatters,  who  were  carrying  on  

their  business  within  the  administrative  

control of MCD. It may be noted that MCD  

has,  within  its  jurisdiction,  the  entire  

Union Territory of Delhi excluding the area  

within the administrative control of NDMC  

and Delhi Cantonment.

23. This Court also noted that after partition  

of this country there was a large influx of  

population to Delhi and the local authority  

was constrained to evolve certain norms to  

22

23

rehabilitate such people. This gave rise to  

the Tehbazari system. Keeping this in view,  

the MCD evolved a scheme of open Tehbazari  

consisting of grant of permission to squat  

on  an  earmarked  spot  for  carrying  on  

business. On Gazetted holidays, festivals  

days and Sundays, permission was given to  

squat in various other areas. This system  

is  known  as  casual  Tehbazari.  The  Court  

noted that for the purpose of such kind of  

hawking the city was divided into ten zones  

and  in  all  288  squatting  areas  were  

identified. This Court also noted that MCD  

also  prepared  a  scheme  for  regulating  

hawking  business  in  Delhi  in  different  

zones.  The  scheme  was  prepared  in  

consultation  with  the  Commissioner  of  

Police and the priority of allotment has  

been determined on the following lines:

“(1)Persons who have been found squatting  between 1970 and 1982 and whose names are  contained  in  the  survey  report  prepared  after  the  survey  conducted  in  1982  will  

23

24

receive  first  priority  for  grant  of  Tehbazari  permission  subject  to  the  scrutiny of their claims; (2) Insofar as casual Tehbazari on weekly  holidays,  festivals/melas,  etc.  is  concerned,  as  well  as  at  the  67  weekly  bazars held, persons availing of the said  benefit  will  continue  to  be  granted  the  casual or weekly Tehbazari; (3) Squatters  who  have  started  squatting/hawking in 1983 onwards and who  are found on the date of survey would also  be considered for grant of open Tehbazari  of 6" x 4" subject to the production of  proof of continuous squatting and proof of  residence  and  nationality.  Such  squatters/hawkers  would  be  granted  open  Tehbazari subject to availability of space  provided they have cleared the dues of the  MCD; and (4) Persons  who  do  not  fall  within  the  aforesaid  three  categories  would  be  permitted  to  apply  for  hawking  licences  under Section 420 of the Delhi Municipal  Corporation  Act,  1957  and  their  applications would be considered on merit  for permission to hawk — not squat — by  moving in specified areas with their goods  on their heads or on cycles. They will be  entitled to hawk with their goods anywhere  in the zone in respect of which they have  been  granted  a  licence.  However,  such  permission  will  be  subject  to  any  restrictions  that  may  be  imposed  by  the  residential  associations  of  different  colonies.”

24. In  the  meantime,  the  writ  petition  

No.1699/87 (  Gainda Ram and others   vs. MCD)  was disposed of by this Court by judgment  

24

25

and order dated 12th May 1993 [(1993) 3 SCC  

178].

25. Ultimately, the Thareja Committee examined  

5627  claims  in  great  detail  and  passed  

detailed  order  in  every  case  and  in  its  

final  report  found  that  761  out  of  5627  

persons  were  entitled  for  allotment  of  

sites  and  it  also  found  12  cases  of  

hardship.  The  said  Committee  also  

identified 977 sites for squatting in NDMC  

area.

26. Those who were aggrieved by the orders of  

the Thareja Committee filed IAs before this  

Court. As many as 130 IAs were filed before  

this  Hon’ble  Court  questioning  various  

orders of Thareja Committee.

27. In the meantime, another judgment in the  

name of  Sodan Singh vs.  NDMC and others,  25

26

(1998) 2 SCC 727 was delivered which was in  

continuation of its two earlier judgments  

concerning  the  hawkers/squatters  in  the  

public  streets  in  NDMC  area.  The  Court  

considered  the  report  of  the  Thareja  

Committee and came to the conclusion that  

occupation  and  places  of  eligible  

squatters,  as  decided  by  the  Thareja  

Committee, is only tentative. However, the  

Court accepted the procedure recommended by  

the Thareja Committee and also accepted its  

recommendation about payment of arrears of  

dues towards Tehbazari and also noted its  

recommendation that in case of failure to  

pay such dues the claimant is not entitled  

to the benefit under the scheme. The Court  

directed certain procedures to be followed  

for the purpose of making final allotment  

of sites. One of them is issuance of public  

notice for allotment of sites, the other  

procedure  is  for  payment  of  arrears  of  

26

27

Tehbazari. The Court also prescribed a cut-

off  date  for  filing  of  application  and  

further directed notice of hearing to the  

petitioners. The Court also held that the  

right of the traders to change their trade  

is subject to reasonable restrictions under  

Article 19(6).  

28. The  Court  thereafter  nominated  another  

Judicial  Officer  Shri  V.C.  Chaturvedi  to  

undertake  various  duties  and  functions  

enumerated in its order and in paragraph 52  

page 741 of the report gave the summary of  

procedure to be followed by the Chaturvedi  

Committee, which are set out:

1. Shri Chaturvedi Committee (sole member)  shall  issue  public  notice  in  an  English  and  a  Hindi  newspaper  (expenses  to  be  borne  by  the  NDMC)  within  15  days from  today permitting the eligible claimants so  found eligible by the Thareja Committee to  submit  their  applications  in  Part  I  containing  options  in  regard  to  the  identified places and sizes (whether 6' x  4' or 4' x 3') in the particular zone to  which  these  claims  belong.  The  public  notice  in  the  newspaper  will  state  that  the details regarding the available sites  

27

28

and their location and size is put up on  the notice boards of the NDMC at various  places,  whose  addresses  are  given.  The  notice will also require the claimants to  state in Part II of their applications the  details as to payment of Tehbazari charges  due after 1-1-1990 and if there are or not  any arrears as on date. The notice will  also be put up in the various offices of  the NDMC within the abovesaid period. The  notice  in  NDMC  office  will  also  give  a  detailed list of the places available for  squatting/hawking  and  stating  whether  it  is  a  kiosk/stall  or  a  place  for  mere  vending on Tehbazari basis as decided by  the Thareja Committee and indicating their  sizes (6' x 4' or 4' x 3').

2. The eligible claimants will be given 3  weeks’  time to  file  in  Part  I  of  their  application  their  three  options,  indicating  the  zone  concerned,  their  seniority  as  decided  by  the  Thareja  Committee, stating whether they come under  any  reservation  category,  the  type  of  trade they have been trading in or the new  trade for which they have applied to the  NDMC and such other particulars as may be  called  for  or  relevant.  In  Part  II  the  eligible claimants shall specify if they  have  made  payments  of  Tehbazari  arrears  due for the period after 1-1-1990 and if  there are any arrears as on date.

3. After  receipt  of  the  claims,  the  Committee  shall  issue  notice  to  the  parties concerned and the NDMC in regard  to  each  of  the  places at  which  squatting/hawking is permitted as per the  Thareja Committee Report and decide on the  basis  of  seniority  and  reservation,  the  size  of  place  and  such  other  relevant  material  as  may  be  placed  before  the  Committee,  as  to  who  should  be  allotted  what  place.  The  Committee  shall  fix  up  dates  of  hearing  by  issuing  registered  A.D.  notices  to  the  parties  concerned.  

28

29

(The expenditure in this behalf shall be  borne  by  the  NDMC.)  The  Committee  shall  give  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  and  pass  reasoned  orders  and  its  decisions  shall be final and shall not be questioned  before  any  other  authority,  tribunal,  court,  nor  the  High  Court  nor  in  this  Court.

4. It  shall  however  be  open  to  Shri  Chaturvedi to obtain, if necessary, such  directions  or  clarifications  from  this  Court by way of filing IAs in this SLP,  even though it is now disposed of.

5. The  claimants  will  be  permitted  to  appear  before  the  Chaturvedi  Committee  either in person or through their counsel.

6. In case it is decided by the Chaturvedi  Committee after the hearing of the case in  Part II that any eligible claimant is in  arrears of Tehbazari dues for any period  after  1-1-1990  then  the  said  Committee  shall fix a date before which the arrears  have to be paid and informing that if the  amount  is  not  paid  by  that  date,  the  claimant  will  lose  his  claim  for  the  kiosk/stall or for the place. In case the  claimant defaults in payment by such date  fixed and the claimant’s rights cease as  stated  above,  the  Chaturvedi  Committee  will  consider  if  the  vacancy  can  be  allotted  to  any  other  claimant  already  declared  eligible  by  the  Thareja  Committee.

7. In  case  any  of  the  places  found  eligible for kiosks/stalls by the Thareja  Committee  are  not  accepted  by  the  Urban  Arts  Commission  or  the  Archaeological  Survey  of  India  and  the  Department  of  Archaeology of the Government of N.C.T.,  the  said  places  meant  for  kiosks/stalls  shall be available for Tehbazari and the  

29

30

Chaturvedi  Committee  shall  pass  appropriate  orders  of  allotment  on  that  basis.  As  and  when  the  abovesaid  authorities  inform  the  NDMC  that  the  places earmarked for kiosks/stalls are not  acceptable  for  that  purpose,  the  NDMC  shall  inform  the  Chaturvedi  Committee  about the said decision. (We have already  observed  that  pending  construction  of  kiosk/stall  the  claimant  tentatively  allotted  the  place  or  other  person  authorisedly using the place for vending  on Tehbazari, shall continue. We also said  unauthorised  persons  vending  at  these  places be evicted by the NDMC forthwith.)

For the purpose of obtaining clearance for  the  said  authority,  the  NDMC  is  granted  time up to 30-6-1998 and for construction  of the kiosks/stalls up to 31-10-1998.

8. In regard to eviction of unauthorised  squatters  or  other  persons  using  the  places identified by the Thareja Committee  the  NDMC  has  undertaken  to  have  them  evicted forthwith and in case this is not  done, it will be open to the Chaturvedi  Committee  to  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  this  Court  for  appropriate  orders,  as  stated earlier.

9. The NDMC in general and the Director of  Estates and the Director of Enforcement in  particular  will  help  and  implement  the  decisions,  directions  or  orders  of  Shri  V.C.  Chaturvedi.  The  NDMC  shall  also  provide the other infrastructure to Shri  Chaturvedi as stated in the main body of  this  order  and  pay  his  remuneration  (in  regard  to  which  we  are  passing  separate  orders in this SLP).

10. The  decisions  of  the  Chaturvedi  Committee  both  on  the  question  of  allotment  of  the  kiosks/stalls  or  the  

30

31

sites for Tehbazari and also as to quantum  of arrears of Tehbazari shall be final as  indicated in the body of this order and  shall  not  be  questioned  either  by  the  claimants  or  the  NDMC  before  any  authority,  tribunal,  court  of  law,  the  High Court or in this Court. No petition  shall be registered in this behalf by the  above bodies. We have only permitted the  Chaturvedi  Committee  to  file  IAs  in  the  appeal  seeking  any  direction  or  clarification and none others. So far as  orders  of  NDMC  in  regard  to  change  of  trade, it is open to the affected parties  to resort to all appropriate remedies. We  have so permitted Shri Chaturvedi to move  this Court in certain respects.

29. Again the matter came before this Court in  

IA  No.394  in  I.A.  No.356  in  WP  (Civil)  

No.1699/1987 (Sudhir Madan and others vs.  

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others).  

In  that  matter  the  Court  on  03.03.2006  

observed that it was not possible to look  

into  each  individual  grievance  and  the  

proceeding  being  a  Public  Interest  

Litigation,  the  Court  was  to  provide  

guidelines  consistent  with  the  public  

interest so that the roads, streets, paths,  

31

32

parks etc. are not occupied by unauthorised  

hawkers. The Court tried to balance between  

the hawkers’ right to hawk on the streets  

and the right of the pedestrians, who were  

larger in number to use the streets. The  

Court,  therefore,  held  that  if  it  was  

consistent with the rights of the citizens  

to provide any space to the hawkers, then  

that could be done by the authorities.  The  

Court directed the authorities to frame a  

scheme keeping all these factors in mind,  

and  also  bearing  in  mind  the  National  

Policy  on  Urban  Street  Vendors,  2004  

(hereinafter “2004 Policy”).

30. Pursuant  to  such  orders,  NDMC  and  MCD  

framed  schemes  for  hawkers  and  squatters  

following the 2004 Policy.  Thereafter, the  

matter was taken up by this Court from time  

to  time,  wherein  it  was  discussed  and  

certain modifications were suggested, which  

32

33

subsequently  were  incorporated  in  the  

scheme.

31. On  17.05.2007  this  Court  rejected  the  

prayer of the hawkers to re-identify the  

site  relying  upon  the  orders  dated  

06.11.2000 passed in  Ramesh Shah vs.  MCD  and others (IA No. 332-333 in WP (Civil)  No.  1699/1987),  while  at  the  same  time  

approving the schemes framed by the NDMC  

and the MCD.

32. By the order dated 17.05.2007 the municipal  

authorities were directed to implement the  

scheme as approved by the Court. Since the  

NDMC  area  had  three  legislative  

constituencies,  this  Court  accordingly  

directed  the  setting  up  of  three  Zonal  

Vending  Committees  as  per  the  scheme  

prepared by the NDMC. Thereafter the Court  

vide its order dated 23.01.2008 asked NDMC  

33

34

and MCD to file status reports about the  

implementation of the scheme. Pursuant to  

the direction of this Court by order dated  

08.05.2008, Mrs. Sukhvinder Kaur, a member  

of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services was  

nominated  by  the  High  Court  as  the  

Presiding  Officer  of  the  Zonal  Vending  

Committees in NDMC area.

33. The main function of the Vending Committees  

was to verify the vending sites and hawking  

zones in the NDMC area. Its other function  

was to scrutinize application for allotment  

of the sites.

34. Both,  the  NDMC  and  MCD,  are  statutory  

bodies  under  The  New  Delhi  Municipal  

Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter, ‘NDMC Act’)  

and  The  Delhi  Municipal  Corporation  Act,  

1957 (hereinafter ‘DMC Act’) respectively.  

34

35

Both  the  acts  are  parliamentary  

legislations.

35. MCD was established under Section 3 of the  

Act  as  a  body  corporate  composing  of  

Councillors. Under DMC Act a public street  

means  a  street  which  vests  in  the  

Corporation as a public street or the soil  

below, the surface of which vests in the  

Corporation and which under the provision  

of the Act becomes or is declared to be a  

public  street  (See  Section  2(44)  of  the  

Act).

36. All public streets vest in the Corporation  

under Section 298 of the Act. Section 42 of  

the Act enumerates the obligatory functions  

of  the  Corporation,  one  of  which  is  the  

removal of obstructions and projections in  

or  upon  the  streets,  bridges  and  other  

public places [See Section 42(p)].

35

36

37. Under Section 320(1) of the Act there is a  

clear mandate that no person shall, except  

with  the  permission  of  the  Commissioner,  

and on payment of such fee as he or she, in  

each  case,  thinks  fit,  place  or  deposit  

upon any street or upon any open channel,  

drain or well in any street or upon any  

public place in stall, chair, bench, box,  

ladder, bale or other things whatsoever so  

as  to  form  an  obstruction  thereto  and  

encroachment thereon.  Section 322 of the  

Act  also  empowers  Commissioner  to  remove  

any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale  

or anything whatsoever placed, deposited or  

projected in, upon, from or to any place in  

the  street.  If  it  has  been  placed  in  

contravention of the Act, the Commissioner  

can remove any article hawked or exposed  

for sale on any public street or in any  

other place in contravention of this Act  

36

37

along with any vehicle, package or box or  

any other thing in or on which such article  

is placed.

38. Under  Section  481  of  the  said  Act,  the  

Corporation may frame bye-laws relating to  

permission,  regulation  or  prohibition  of  

use or occupation of any street or place by  

itinerant vendors/hawkers or by any person,  

for the sale of articles or the exercise of  

any calling or the sitting of any booth or  

stall  and  make  regulation  for  fees  

chargeable  for  such  occupation.  (See  the  

provision of Section 481E(5) of the Act)

39. Under  the  NDMC  Act  almost  similar  

provisions are there. Definition of public  

street under Section 2(39) of NDMC Act is  

virtually  the  same  as  the  definition  of  

public street under Section 2(44) of the  

DMC Act.  Similarly under Section 3 of the  

NDMC Act, NDMC has been formed as a body  

37

38

corporate having perpetual succession and a  

common  seal.   NDMC  is  also  equally  

empowered  to  remove  obstructions  and  

projections  in  and  upon  the  streets,  

bridges and other public places.  In fact  

it is one of the obligatory functions of  

NDMC.

40. Under  Section  202  of  the  NDMC  Act  all  

public  streets  vest  in  the  Council.  The  

NDMC Act also contains similar provisions  

prohibiting erection of structures/fixtures  

which  causes  obstructions  in  the  street.  

(See Section 224. Sections 225 and 226 of  

NDMC have been referred to already).

41. The NDMC is also authorized to prevent any  

nuisance  in  any  public  street  or  public  

place,  or  picketing  of  animals  or  

collection of carts, displacement, damaging  

38

39

or making any alteration to the pavement,  

water-drain  etc.  without  any  authority.  

(See  Section  308(viii)  of  the  Act.  

Reference  to  Section  330  of  the  Act  has  

been already made)

42. It has been held by the Constitution Bench  

of this Court in  Sodan Singh (supra) that  right to hawk on the streets of Delhi is a  

fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of  

the  Constitution  but  such  right  is  not  

absolute  and  is  subject  to  reasonable  

restrictions  under  Article  19(6)  of  the  

Constitution.  

43. On  a  perusal  of  the  aforesaid  

constitutional provision, it is clear that  

the rights under Article 19(1)(g) can only  

be  controlled  by  law  as  contemplated  in  

Article  19(6).  Such  law  can  impose  

39

40

reasonable  restrictions.  The  relevant  

constitutional provisions are set out:-

“19(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said  clause  shall  affect  the  operation  of  any  existing law in so far as it imposes, or  prevent  the  State  from  making  any  law  imposing,  in  the  interest  of  the  general  public,  reasonable  restrictions  on  the  exercise of the right conferred by the said  sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in  the  said  sub-clause  shall  affect  the  operation of any existing law in so far as  it  relates to,  or prevent  the State  from  making any law relating to, -

(i)_the  professional  or  technical  qualifications necessary for practicing  any  profession  or  carrying  on  any  occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the State, or  by a corporation owned or controlled by  the  State,  of  any  trade,  business,  industry  or  service,  whether  to  the  exclusion,  complete  or  partial,  of  citizens or otherwise.”

44. On  an  analysis  of  the  provisions  under  

Article  19(6),  it  is  clear  that  the  

provisions under Article 19(6) are broadly  

in two parts.  The first part authorizes  

that nothing in sub-clause (g) of Article  

19(1)  shall  affect  the  operation  of  

existing  law  in  so  far  it  imposes  

reasonable restrictions, in the interest of  

40

41

general  public,  on  rights  conferred  by  

Article 19(1)(g). The second part is that  

nothing contained in Article 19(1)(g) shall  

prevent  the  State  from  making  any  law  

imposing,  in  the  interest  of  general  

public,  reasonable  restrictions  on  the  

exercise  of  rights  conferred  by  Article  

19(1)(g). Here we are not concerned with  

clauses (i) and (ii) of Article 19(6).

45. It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  reasonable  

restrictions on the fundamental right under  

Article 19(1)(g) can be imposed either by  

existing law or by a law which may be made  

by  a  State  in  the  interest  of  general  

public.

46. Therefore, nothing short of law can impose  

reasonable  restrictions  on  a  citizen’s  

fundamental right to carry on hawking under  

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

41

42

47. In  Bijoe Emmanuel and others vs.  State of  Kerala and others (AIR 1987 SC 748) this  Court held, “the law is now well settled  

that  any  law  which  may  be  made  under  

clauses  (2)  to  (6)  of  Article  19  to  

regulate the exercise of the right to the  

freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) to  

(e) and (g) must be a law having statutory  

force  and  not  a  mere  executive  or  

departmental instructions.”  (para 15 page  

753)  

48. In coming to the aforesaid formulation in  

Bijoe Emmanuel (supra) this Court relied on  two  Constitution  Bench  decisions  of  this  

Court in the case of  Kameshwar Prasad and  others vs. State of Bihar and another (AIR  1962  SC  1166)  and  another  Constitution  

Bench  decision  of  this  Court  in  Kharak  

42

43

Singh vs.  State  of  U.P.  and  others (AIR  1963 SC 1295).

49. In  the  instant  case,  this  Court  has  

discussed the legal provisions in the NDMC  

and  DMC  Act  which  seek  to  control  the  

fundamental  right  of  the  petitioners  to  

carry on their business of hawking.    

50. As  stated  earlier  the  scheme  which  was  

framed by NDMC for regulation of squatting  

and hawking in the NDMC areas was on the  

basis of guidelines given by this Court in  

its judgment dated 30th August 1989 in Sodan  Singh’s case.  In  that  scheme  NDMC  has  divided its area into four zones and some  

of  the  zones  have  been  made  non-hawking  

zones. From time to time the said scheme  

has been modified by the orders passed by  

this  Court.  This  Court  also  finds  that  

subsequently another scheme was prepared by  

the NDMC pursuant to the 2004 Policy. In  

43

44

the said scheme the NDMC has referred to  

Sections  225  and  330  of  the  NDMC  Act.  

Section 225 of the Act permits squatting  

only  on  the  permission  given  by  the  

Chairman  and  on  payment  of  such  fees  in  

each  case  as  a  Chairman  may  think  fit.  

Section 330 of the Act provides for licence  

for hawking articles etc. The said Section  

330 authorizes the NDMC to prevent hawking  

unless there is a licence to that effect  

granted by the Chairperson.  

51. As per Section 226 of the NDMC, Chairperson  

may  without  notice  cause  removal  of  

articles  kept  in  the  public  street  and  

Section  369(2)  of  the  Act  provides  for  

punishment  for  contravention  of  the  

provision of the Section 225(1).

52. The 2004 Policy provides for setting up of  

a vending committee which may consist of  

representatives of (a) Municipal Authority,  

44

45

(b) Traffic and Local Police, (c) Public  

and owning authority, (d) Associations of  

traders,  residents  and  also  of  street  

vendors  both  static  and  mobile.  The  

function of such vending committing shall  

include:

“(i)Demarcation of vending and non-vending  areas;

(ii)Provision and identification of space  for squatting and areas for hawking.  Provisions  for  space  may  include  temporary  designations  as  Vendor  markets (e.g. as weekly markets) whose  use  at  other  time  may  be  different  (e.g.  Public  Parks,  Parking  lots)  etc.;

(iii) Timing  restrictions  on  the  urban  vending. It should correspond to needs  of  ensuring  non-congestion  of  public  spaces;

(iv) Public hygiene and cleanliness; (v) Ensure continuation and upgradation  

of weekly markets; (vi) Quantitative  norms  i.e.  where  to  

allow,  how  many  squatters  or  persons;

(vii) Qualitative guidelines:- This has to  include

- Provision for solid waste disposals, - Public  toilets  to  maintain  

cleanliness; - Aesthetic  design  of  mobile  

stalls/push carts; - Provision for electricity; - Provision  for  protective  cover  to  

protect  their  wares  as  well  as  45

46

themselves  from  heat,  rain,  dust  etc;  

(viii) Regulatory Process; (ix) Registration system; (x) Corrective  mechanism  against  

defiance by vendors; (xi) Collection of revenues and (xii) Monitoring mechanism.”  

53. The 2004 Policy has also referred to the  

Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 which provides  

for informal sector in trade in the planned  

development of various zones. In the said  

policy, there is also a division between  

vending  and  non-vending  areas  and  it  is  

made clear that no hawking licence shall be  

issued in non-vending areas. The timing and  

the day of hawking was also to be regulated  

as per the suggestions of Residents Welfare  

Association (RWA).

54. Neither  the  said  policy  nor  the  scheme  

framed  by  the  NDMC  can  be  called  law,  

except of course the provisions of Sections  

225,  226,  330  and  369(2)  of  NDMC  Act  

mentioned hereinabove.

46

47

55. Section 388 of the NDMC Act empowers the  

NDMC  to  frame  bye-laws.  This  power  is  

categorized under different clauses of sub-

section 1 of Section 388. Under clause (D)  

of  the  said  sub-section  there  is  a  

provision for making bye-laws relating to  

the streets.  Section 388(1)(D)(5) of NDMC  

Act provides as follows:

“388(1)(D)(5)  the  permission,  regulation  or prohibition or use or occupation of any  street or place by it, itinerant vendors  or hawkers or by any person for the sale  of articles or the exercise of any calling  or the setting up of any booth or stall  and  the  fees  chargeable  for  such  occupation;”

 56. The  bye-laws  have  to  be  laid  before  

Parliament under Section 389 of the said  

Act.  These bye-laws may have the status of  

subordinate  or  delegated  legislation.  

Penalty  has  been  provided  for  breach  of  

bye-laws under Section 390 of the Act.  

47

48

57. It does not appear that the NDMC has made  

any bye-law under Section 388 of the NDMC  

Act so as to regulate the fundamental right  

of  the  hawkers  to  hawk  or  squat  on  the  

streets of Delhi. The schemes which have  

been  framed  under  the  direction  of  this  

Court  or  the  2004  Policy  which  has  been  

framed by the Government, cannot said to be  

framed under the said power to frame bye-

laws and do not have the status of law or  

even subordinate legislation.   

58. The  Master  Plan  of  Delhi,  2021  however,  

provides  for  the  accommodation  of  the  

informal  sector  wherein  it  states  for  

suitable  public  conveniences  and  solid  

waste disposal and arrangements apart from  

formulation of guidelines for schemes which  

would include hawking and no hawking zones.  

The Master Plan also seeks to define the  

role and responsibility of NGOs along with  

48

49

the  specific  obligation  of  the  hawkers  

towards society for maintenance of law and  

order within the hawking zones and weekly  

markets.  There  was  also  provision  for  

informal bazaar in new urban areas.  

59. Subsequent  to  the  2004  Policy  a  new  

National  Policy  on  Urban  Street  Vendors,  

2009 (hereinafter “2009 Policy”) was framed  

on 17th June 2009. The most important part  

of the 2009 Policy is that it recognizes  

street  vending  as  an  integral  and  

legitimate part of urban retail trade and  

distribution  system,  even  when  otherwise  

street vending is sometimes projected as a  

major  menace  in  urban  areas  aggravating  

traffic problems. But the 2009 Policy aims  

at giving the street vendors a legal status  

by  providing  them  legitimate  vending  and  

hawking  zones  in  the  city  in  the  town  

master plans and development plans.

49

50

60. The  National  Policy,  therefore,  directs  

“Municipal  Authorities  should  frame  

necessary  rules  for  regulating  entry  of  

street vendors on a time sharing basis in  

designated  vending  zones  keeping  in  view  

three broad categories – registered vendors  

who have secured a license for a specified  

site/stall; registered street vendors in a  

zone  on  a  time  sharing  basis;  and  

registered mobile street vendors visiting  

one or the other vending zone;”.  

61. The  Policy,  therefore,  seeks  to  

institutionalize a part of the urban street  

vending through legislation. The objects of  

the policy are as follows:

3.1 Overarching Objective  

The overarching objective to be achieved  through this Policy is:  

50

51

To  provide  for  and  promote  a  supportive  environment  for  the  vast  mass  of  urban  street vendors to carry out their vocation  while at the same time insuring that their  vending  activities  do  not  lead  to  overcrowding and unsanitary conditions in  public spaces and streets.  

3.2 Specific Objectives  

This  Policy  aims  to  develop  a  legal  framework  through  a  model  law  on  street  vending  which  can  be  adopted  by  States/Union  Territories  with  suitable  modifications to take into account their  geographical/local  conditions.  The  specific  objectives  of  this  Policy  arc  elaborated as follows:  

a) Legal Status:  To give street vendors a legal status by  formulating an appropriate law and thereby  providing  for  legitimate  vending/hawking  zones in city/town master or development  plans  including  zonal,  local  and  layout  plans and ensuring their enforcement;  

b) Civic Facilities:  To  provide  civic  facilities  for  appropriate  use  of  identified  spaces  as  vending/hawking zones, vendors' markets or  vending areas in accordance with city/town  master  plans  including  zonal,  local  and  layout plans;  

c) Transparent Regulation:   51

52

To  eschew  imposing  numerical  limits  on  access to public spaces by discretionary  licenses,  and  instead  moving  to  nominal  fee-based  regulation  of  access,  where  previous occupancy of space by the street  vendors determines the allocation of space  or  creating  new  informal  sector  markets  where space access is on a temporary turn- by-turn  basis.  All  allotments  of  space,  whether permanent or temporary should be  based on payment of a prescribed fee fixed  by  the  local  authority  on  the  recommendations  of  the  Town  Vending  Committee  to  be  constituted  under  this  policy;

d) Organization of Vendors:  To promote, where necessary, organizations  of  street  vendors  e.g.  unions/co- operatives/associations and other forms of  organizations  to  facilitate  their  collective empowerment;  

e) Participative Processes:  To  set  up  participatory  processes  that  involve firstly, local authority, planning  authority  and  police;  secondly,  associations  of  street  vendors;  thirdly,  resident  welfare  associations  and  fourthly,  other  civil  society  organisations  such  as  NGOs,  representatives  of  professional  groups  (such as lawyers, doctors, town planners,  architects etc.), representatives of trade  and commerce, representatives of scheduled  banks and eminent citizens;  

52

53

f) Self-Regulation:  To  promote  norms  of  civic  discipline  by  institutionalizing  mechanisms  of  self- management and self-regulation in matters  relating  to  hygiene,  including  waste  disposal etc. amongst street vendors both  in the individually allotted areas as well  as vending zones/clusters with collective  responsibility  for  the  entire  vending  zone/cluster; and  

g) Promotional Measures:  To  promote  access  of  street  vendors  to  such  services  as  credit,  skill  development, housing, social security and  capacity building. For such promotion, the  services  of  Self  Help  Groups  (SHGs)/Co- operatives/  Federations/Micro  Finance  Institutions  (MFIs),  Training  Institutes  etc. should be encouraged.    

62. A law has been enacted under the name and  

style of a National Capital Territory of  

Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act  

2009 on 23rd December 2009. This law makes  

special provisions for the National Capital  

Territory of Delhi for a period up to 31st  

December 2010. It is, therefore, clear that  

the said law is for temporary period.  From  

the  preamble  of  the  law,  it  will  appear  53

54

that whereas a strategy and a scheme has  

been prepared by the local authorities in  

the National Capital Territory of Delhi for  

regulation  of  urban  street  vendors  in  

accordance with national policy for urban  

street  vendors  and  the  Master  Plan  for  

Delhi, 2021 and it has also been provided  

that  whereas  more  time  is  required  for  

orderly  implementation  of  the  scheme  

regarding hawkers and urban street vendors  

and  for  regulation  of  unauthorized  

colonies, the said law shall have effect  

only  up  to  31st December  2010.  Section  

3(1)(b)  of  the  said  Act  provides  as  

follows:

“3(1)(b) scheme and orderly arrangements for  regulation  of  urban  street  vendors  in  consonance  with  the  national  policy  for  urban street vendors and hawkers as provided  in the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021”.

63. There  is  a  Bill  called  a  Model  Street  

Vendors  (Protection  of  Livelihood  and  54

55

Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2009 by  

the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  

Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. From  

the preamble and the long title of the Bill  

it appears that the Bill is to provide for  

protection  of  livelihood  of  urban  street  

vendors and to regulate street vending and  

for matters connected therewith.  Now if  

the  said  Bill  is  enacted  in  the  present  

form, the Bill then prima facie recognizes  

the  rights  of  hawkers  and  vendors  under  

Article  21  of  the  Constitution  since  it  

seeks to protect their livelihood.  

64. In the background of the provisions in the  

Bill and the 2009 Policy, it is clear that  

an  attempt  is  made  to  regulate  the  

fundamental  right  of  street  hawking  and  

street vending by law, since it has been  

declared by this Court that the right to  

hawk on the streets or right to carry on  

55

56

street vending is part of fundamental right  

under Article 19(1)(g).

65. However, till the law is made the attempt  

made by NDMC and MCD to regulate this right  

by framing schemes which are not statutory  

in  nature  is  not  exactly  within  the  

contemplation  of  constitutional  provision  

discussed above. However, such schemes have  

been regulated from time to time by this  

Court  for  several  years  as  pointed  out  

above. Even, orders passed by this Court,  

in  trying  to  regulate  such  hawking  and  

street vending, is not law either. At the  

same  time,  there  is  no  denying  the  fact  

that hawking and street vending should be  

regulated by law. Such a law is imminently  

necessary in public interest.

66. Certain broad facts cannot be lost sight  

of. Whatever power this Court may have had,  

56

57

it  possibly  cannot,  in  the  absence  of  a  

proper  statutory  framework,  control  the  

ever increasing population of this country.  

Similarly  this  Court  cannot  control  the  

influx of people to different metro cities  

and towns in search of livelihood in the  

background of the huge unemployment problem  

in this country. While there is a burning  

unemployment on one hand, on the other hand  

there  is  a  section  of  our  people,  that,  

having regard to its ever increasing wealth  

and  financial  strength,  is  buying  any  

number  of  cars,  scooters  and  three  

wheelers.  No  restriction  has  apparently  

been imposed by any law on such purchase of  

cars, three wheelers, scooters and cycles.  

There is very little scope for expanding  

the  narrowing  road  spaces  in  the  

metropolitan  cities  and  towns  in  India.  

Therefore, the problem is acute.  On the  

one  hand  there  is  an  exodus  of  fleeting  

57

58

population  to  metro  cities  and  towns  in  

search of employment and on the other hand  

with the ever increasing population of cars  

and other vehicles in the same cities, the  

roads are choked to the brim posing great  

hazards to the interest of general public.  

In the midst of such near chaos the hawkers  

want to sell their goods to make a living.  

Most of the hawkers are very poor, a few of  

them may have a marginally better financial  

position.  But by and large they constitute  

an unorganized poor sector in our society.  

Therefore,  structured  regulation  and  

legislation  is  urgently  necessary  to  

control and regulate fundamental right of  

hawking of these vendors and hawkers.

  

67. This Court finds that innumerable IAs have  

been filed in this Court along with various  

objections by the hawkers, most of the time  

collectively, complaining about steps taken  

58

59

by municipal authorities, namely, NDMC and  

MCD  to  prevent  them  from  hawking  and  

vending. This Court has tried its best to  

somehow deal with the situation. But it is  

difficult  for  this  Court  to  tackle  this  

huge problem in the absence of a valid law.  

The nature of the problem defies a proper  

solution by this Court by any judicially  

manageable standards.  

68. This  Court,  therefore,  disposes  of  this  

writ petition and all the IAs filed with  

direction that the problem of hawking and  

street  vending  may  be  regulated  by  the  

present schemes framed by NDMC and MCD up  

to 30th June, 2011. Within that time, the  

appropriate Government is to legislate and  

bring out the law to regulate hawking and  

hawkers’ fundamental right.  

59

60

69. Till  such  time  the  grievances  of  the  

hawkers/vendors  may  be  redressed  by  the  

internal  dispute  redressal  mechanisms  

provided in the schemes.   

70. In  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  MCD,  they  

have  set  out  the  Dispute  Redressal  

Mechanism as follows:

“a)  First  Level:  12  Zonal  Vending  Committees (one in every Zone); headed by  Deputy Commissioner of the Zone.  

b)  Second  Level:  In  case  of  dispute  between  the  allottee  of  Tehbazari  site  and the MCD, the Zonal Vending Committees  are headed by the Presiding Officer (in- Service  Addl.  Distt.  &  Sessions  Judge)  Presently Ms. Rekha Rani.

c)  Third  Level:  Appellate  Authority  headed by a Retd. Judge of the Delhi High  Court-presently Shri J.P. Singh.”

71. It has also been stated in the affidavit  

that in case any party is aggrieved by the  

decision pertaining to above levels, he or  

she is free to file an appeal to the higher  

level.   Such  level  of  Zonal  Vending  

Committee is headed by Deputy Commissioner  

of  the  concerned  zone.  If  any  party  is  60

61

aggrieved by the order/decision of the said  

Zonal  Vending  Committee,  he  or  she  can  

prefer  an  appeal  with  the  Zonal  Vending  

Committee headed by the Presiding Officer  

(in-Service  Additional  District  and  

Sessions  Judge)  and  thereafter  to  the  

Appellate Authority. In the said affidavit,  

which has been filed by Shri K.S. Mehra,  

Commissioner  of  MCD,  it  has  been  stated  

that the MCD undertakes that in case the  

decisions by any of the committees are not  

acceptable to the department, the MCD would  

file an appeal to the next level.  However,  

where no appeal is filed, the decision at  

the particular level would be final. It has  

also been stated in the affidavit by the  

MCD that if there is a need for change of  

any clause or term of the scheme, the MCD  

may do so in terms of the order of this  

Court.  

61

62

72. In so far as NDMC is concerned they have  

also filed an affidavit, affirmed by Shri  

Parimal  Rai,  Chairman,  NDMC.  In  that  

affidavit,  they  have  disclosed  another  

affidavit which was filed by Shri Parimal  

Rai in this writ petition [W.P.(C) No.1699  

of  1987],  wherein  they  have  given  the  

details of the Dispute Redressal Mechanism  

in  paragraph  10,  which  is  set  out  as  

follows:-

“NDMC  proposes  to  implement  Adjudicating  mechanism  in  its  scheme  in  a  Three-Tier  system  like  the  one  in  MCD  Scheme.  Proposed  Three-Tier  system  is  Three  Vending Sub Committees & Vending Committee  main and one Appellate Authority over and  above the Vending Sub-Committees and Main  Vending  Committee.  The  details  of  this  proposed three-tier system is as under:  

(i) Vending Sub-Committee (Site of Spaces)  

(ii)  Vending  Sub-Committee  (Health  and  Hygiene)  

(iii) Vending sub-Committee (Enforcement)  

Functions and compositions of these sub- committees are as under.  

62

63

A. Sites & Spaces:-  (a) Functions :-  

The sub-committee shall be responsible  for  recommending  to  Vending  Committee  (Main) on the following :-  

(i) Identifying spaces of squatting  and the areas for hawking in the  vending areas specified in para- 4.2.1  of  the  scheme.  These  identification shall be as per  the  paras-3.3  of  the  scheme.  While  considering  the  spaces  near  the  schools,  the  representative  of  the  Director  (Education)  shall  be  co-opted.  While  determining  the  spaces  near  the  parks,  representative  of Director (Horticulture) shall  be  co-opted.  While  determining  the  spaces  near  the  parks,  representative  of  Director  (Horticulture)  shall  be  co- opted.  Where spaces are to be  selected  near  Hospitals,  representative  of  the  Hospital  to be included.  

(ii) To  identify  weekly  or  evening  markets.  

(iii) To  begin  with  the  Committee  shall  restrict  itself  to  the  sites  already  earlier  approved  by the Supreme Court excluding  the sites deleted by orders of  Court or due to security reasons  from  Parliament  Complex  and  certain areas being declared as  non-vending  areas  and  identifying  spaces  on  these  sites.  

63

64

(iv) Timings  restrictions  to  ensure  that there is no congestion in  public places.  

(v) Quantitative norms i.e. where to  allow and how many squatters or  persons at each site.  

(b) Composition:-  This  sub-Committee  shall  consist  of  the  following members -  

• Director (Vending Committee).  

• A representative of the MLA of New Delhi  Assembly  Constituency/Delhi  Cantonment  Constituency.  

•  A  representative  of  the  traffic  police/local police for the NDMC area.  

•  A  representative  of  the  Market  Association  of  the  concerned  market  for  which  squatting  sites  are  to  be  identified.  

• A representative of the Resident Welfare  Association  where  the  vending  sites/hawking sites are to be decided in  the residential colonies.  

•  A  representative  of  the  authorized  hawkers/squatters  from  the  market  for  which the sites are being identified.  

• A representative of the Road Division of  the  NDMC  where  the  sites  are  to  be  selected on footpath and the roads.  

• Convenor of the sub-Committee shall be  Joint Director (Vending Committee) or any  

64

65

other  officer  of  NDMC  appointed  by  Chairperson.  

This Committee shall be headed by Director  (Vending Committee) {Selection of sites &  spaces}.  

B.  Vending  sub-Committee  (Health  and  Hygiene): (a) Functions:-  The sub-Committee shall recommend to the  Vending Committee on the following:-  

(i) Issue  of  fresh  licence  for  hawking  including  for  ice-cream  and  water  trolleys.  

(ii) Recommend  cancellation  of  hawking  licence  and  Tehbazari  permission  of  those who violate terms of licence or  do not confirm to Health & Hygiene.

(iii) To  ensure  public  hygiene  and  cleanliness.  

(iv) Qualitative guidelines-  - Provision of solid waste disposal from  

squatting sites.  - Public toilet to maintain cleanliness  - Provision for electricity, if the same  

is to be provided.  - Approving protective covers to protect  

the wares and squatters from the rain,  heat, dust etc.

- Amount  of  fee  to  be  collected  for  disposal of solid waste from sites and  for user of toilet facilities.  

65

66

(v) Issue  of  photo  identity  cards  to  hawkers.  

(vi) Any other function assigned by Vending  Committee [Main] or Chairperson.  

(b) Composition:-  This Vending sub-Committee shall be headed  by  the  Medical  Officer  of  Health.  Its  Members shall be -  

(i)  Representative  of  Chief  Engineer  (Electrical).  

(ii)  Representative  of  Chief  Engineer  (Civil).  

(iii) A Representatives of Association of  the  Market  for  which  hawking  licence  or  qualitative  guidelines  are  being  considered.  

(iv)  A  representative  of  the  authorized  squatters of the market for which hawking  licence  or  qualitative  guidelines  are  being considered.  

(v) Convenor of the Sub-Committee shall be  Jt. Director (Vending Committee).  

The  Committee  shall  submit  its  recommendations  on  qualitative  guidelines  by 30.09.2010 to Vending Committee (Main).  

C.  Vending sub-Committee (Enforcement) : (a) Functions    

66

67

(i) Registration  of  squatters  covered by Clause-4 & 5 after  police verification.

(ii) Collection  of  registration  charges  fixed  by  the  Chairperson  on  the  recommendations  of  the  Vending Committee.  

(iii) Regulatory  process,  registration system. Issue of  photo Identity Cards.

 (iv) Collection of fees as may be  

fixed  by  the  Chairperson  on  the  recommendations  of  the  Vending Committee.  

(v) Monitoring mechanism.

(vi) Other  matters  as  may  be  assigned by Vending Committee  or Chairperson.  

(vii) To  recommend  cancellation  of  permission  to  approved  squatters.  

(viii) To  issue  Tehbazari  permission,  on  approval  of  recommendation  of  Vending  Committee by Chairperson.

 (ix) To process cases of transfer  

on legal heir basis.  

(x) To remove squatters from non- vending  areas  and  remove  unauthorized  squatter  from  vending areas and take action  

67

68

U/s-226  of  the  New  Delhi  Municipal Council Act, 1994.  

(b) Composition:-   

The  Committee  shall  be  headed  by  Director  (Enforcement)  and  shall  consist of representative of Accounts,  Chief  Security  Officer  and  local  police, if necessary. Convener of the  Committee  shall  be  Joint  Director,  Vending Committee or any other officer  appointed  by  the  Chairperson.  Chairperson  can  also  add  members  in  this  sub-Committee.  This  Committee  shall  complete  its  functions  of  Registration by 31st October 2010.”

 

73. In  paragraph  12  of  the  affidavit  it  has  

been  stated  that  there  shall  be  an  

Appellate Authority which shall attend to  

the redressal of grievances of squatters,  

hawkers,  traders,  residents  or  any  other  

person  by  hearing  appeals  against  the  

decision of the Vending Committee (Main).  

Paragraph 12 of that affidavit is set out  

below:-

68

69

“There shall be an Appellate Authority.  On the forwarding of petitions received  by the Chairperson, this Authority shall  attend  to  redressal  of  grievances  of  squatters, hawkers, traders, residents or  any  other  person.  The  Authority  shall  also hear appeals against the decision of  Vending  Committee  (Main).  Decisions  of  this Authority unless challenged before a  Higher Forum or in any Competent Court,  shall be final. This Authority shall be  initially headed by a person appointed by  the Chairperson having at least 10 years  legal or judicial background. There can  be  more  than  one  member  in  this  Authority.”  

74. In the said affidavit, which was affirmed  

before this Court on 24th August, 2010 it  

has been stated that NDMC shall comply with  

the  orders  which  would  be  passed  by  the  

adjudicatory mechanism contemplated in the  

scheme and which has been approved by this  

Court for the NDMC area, unless such orders  

are made subject matter of challenge before  

a higher forum or in any other competent  

Court.   

75. In  view  of  such  schemes,  the  hawkers,  

squatters  and  vendors  must  abide  by  the  

69

70

Dispute Redressal scheme mentioned above.  

There should not be any direct approach to  

this Court by way of fresh petition or IAs,  

bypassing the Dispute Redressal Mechanism  

provided in the scheme.  

76. However,  before  30th June,  2011,  the  

appropriate Government is to enact a law on  

the basis of the Bill mentioned above or on  

the basis of any amendment thereof so that  

the hawkers may precisely know the contours  

of their rights.

77. This  Court  is  giving  this  direction  in  

exercise of its jurisdiction to protect the  

fundamental  right  of  the  citizens.  The  

hawkers’ and squatters’ or vendors’ right  

to carry on hawking has been recognized as  

fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).  

At the same time the right of the commuters  

to move freely and use the roads without  

70

71

any impediment is also a fundamental right  

under  Article  19(1)(d).  These  two  

apparently  conflicting  rights  must  be  

harmonized and regulated by subjecting them  

to  reasonable  restrictions  only  under  a  

law.  The  question  is,  therefore,  vitally  

important  to  a  very  large  section  of  

people, mostly ordinary men and women. Such  

an issue cannot be left to be decided by  

schemes  and  which  are  monitored  by  this  

Court from time to time.  

78. The second reason is that the appropriate  

Government has already enacted a Bill and,  

therefore, the initial decision making in  

the  field  of  legislative  exercise  is  

complete.  It  has,  of  course,  to  be  

converted  into  a  law  by  following  the  

Constitutional  process.  That  is  why  time  

till 30th June, 2011 is given.  

71

72

79. The fundamental right of the hawkers, just  

because  they  are  poor  and  unorganized,  

cannot be left in a state of limbo nor can  

it  left  to  be  decided  by  the  varying  

standards of a scheme which changes from  

time to time under orders of this Court.  

With  the  aforesaid  observations  and  

directions the writ petition and all the  

IAs are disposed of.

80. No order as to costs.  

  

.....................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.....................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi   October 8, 2010

72