HOT TOPICS

SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES

Vending zones soon in city

181

Written By murali772 - 4 January, 2012

Civic amenities Bangalore Media Reports footpaths hawking hawker

In future, the streets and pavements should be in order, with vendors taking places allotted to them. The Karnataka Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, approved by the cabinet on Tuesday, aims to streamline hawking by having specified vending zones and ensure convenience to pedestrians and motorists.

The city will have vending zones, vending restriction zones and vending-free zones. Pedestrian movement, cleanliness, sanitation and public hygiene would be considered while identifying them. The new policy will lead to the creation of a town vending committee, where street vendors have to register. The committee has been empowered to seize material and goods, if the vendors are found guilty of violating rules. According to the new policy, a penalty of Rs 500 to Rs 5,000 can be imposed.

For the full report in the ToI, click here

This, I expect, should be seen as a welcome development. A lot of discussions on the subject has already taken place on PRAJA, which may be accessed here. Strangely again, on a subject like this, where the civil society would have had much to say, there doesn't appear to have taken place much of public consultations.

Muralidhar Rao

COMMENTS

the Kolkata mess

murali772 - 16 March, 2015 - 13:34

The two sets of hawkers — old and new — are distinctly identifiable on Burtram Street and Humayun Place. While the old set had settled along the footpath and against the market wall, the new ones plonked themselves right on the road. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) board anointed them as 'mobile hawkers', when in reality they are anything but, encroaching upon half of Bertram Street and Humayun Place and occupying parking lots.
 
"We want mobile hawkers to go. They are loud and misbehave with customers. We cannot say anything because they have greater numbers and are backed by musclemen," Singh said, adding that the problem could be solved if civic officials and police carried out anti-encroachment drives intermittently.
 
Though hawkers have been around since fire ravaged a part of New Market in 1985, the fine balance was lost after the Trinamool Congress-led board at  KMC instructed the administration to lay off against fresh encroachment. Every inch of the pavement and chunks of streets got occupied in no time.
 
At the KMC headquarters, the political bosses seemed unmoved by the storm brewing at the doorstep. Mayor Sovan Chatterjee and MMiC (markets) Tarak Singh did not even to call traders to a meeting.
 
"It is unfortunate that the government does not consider it worthwhile to discuss the hawker problem... No trader organization has been called for the CM's meeting with hawkers on Friday. The Joint Traders' Federation strike can ignite a spark that will travel like wildfire," asked Federation of Traders' Organizations joint secretary Tarak Nath Singh.
 
Federation of West Bengal Trade Associations also joined forces with them. Its license committee chairman Ram Lagan Mishra pointed out that the 70-lakh strong trader community formed a formidable vote bank that the government was ignoring at its own peril.
 
For the full text of the report in the Kolkata edition of ToI, click here.
 
This is what happens when the "right to livelihood" argument gets stretched beyond all limits to where it begins to impinge on the rights of the traders, who carry the burden of paying all kinds of taxes, apart from impinging on the rights of pedestrians for safe and unhindered passage. We need to guard against this happening in Bengaluru
 

BBMP has not got the idea of hawkers' zone right

murali772 - 20 April, 2016 - 09:55

The high court on Monday said footpaths should be clear of encroachments for the benefit of pedestrians; they cannot be utilized as godowns by hawkers putting up temporary/permanent structures.

Disposing of a PIL, a division bench wondered how BBMP could grant a portion of the footpath on 17th Main, Rajajinagar III Block, to hawkers to put up shanty-like constructions for shops. "We fail to understand the Palike's generosity...," the bench observed, reacting to the civic agency allowing hawkers to occupy four feet of the footpath for their shops.

The bench noted that a hawker does business by moving/travelling and cannot be permitted to put up permanent/temporary constructions on footpaths.

Earlier, BBMP counsel informed the court that the area mentioned in the petition had been declared a hawkers' zone. If four feet of the footpath had been occupied by hawkers, pedestrians could still use the rest of it -- 16 feet, he said.

For the full text of the report (emphasis added by me) in the ToI, click here.

Apparently, the court does not quite agree with BBMP's idea of a "hawkers' zone". The BBMP obviously needs to re-work it.

I expect this ruling should have an impact on constructions/ obstructions such as this, this, as also the ones included in this album. And, this judgement of Justice Gopala Gowda, should help get the powers that be moving on these too.

not sure much has been achieved

murali772 - 24 September, 2013 - 07:00

The Lok Sabha recently cleared the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, a piece of legislation with the aim of securing the rights and livelihood of small vendors in the country. With the count of small vendors estimated in tens of millions, the potential significance of such a law is clearly immense from the perspective of the huge, unorganized labour sector. But with the additional layers that it adds to the country’s already overburdened bureaucracy, there is little reason to be optimistic about the impact of the legislation.

- - - Serving the immediate consumption needs of middle and lower income class Indians, street vendors undoubtedly add a tremendous amount of value to the domestic economy. But to complicate matters, the issue of street vending has also brought forth the question of management of public space, with vendors often being perceived by governments as well as the common citizenry as free-riding on cramped public space. Thus, economically speaking, the task in the hands of local authorities is the management of a vital public good by balancing out economic efficiency against other pressing ends of public welfare.

Towards this end, the best idea coming from the minds of the architects of the current Bill is the building of an overarching bureaucratic apparatus. But as with bureaucratic restrictions of many kinds, the perverse incentives driving public authorities is likely to lead them to exploit citizens, poor vendors in this case, by erecting insurmountable rent-seeking barriers. The current legislation, thus, could further undermine the rights of small vendors instead of uplifting their status—which remains the Bill’s stated goal.

Also, the unintended consequences of the current legislation could be substantial as restrictions imposed by vending committees could stall the functioning of vibrant local markets that mainly serve the needs of poor households cut off from more expensive outlets in the supply chain. The way forward is to dedicate efforts towards minimizing the level of bureaucracy strangling activity at the local levels of the economy, while allowing local communities to deal with the constraints of space that accompany commerce by balancing the interests of various stakeholders.

For the full report in Livemint, click here.

I am not sure much has been achieved through the bill other than adding to the already long list of the government's vote claiming propaganda material, led by The Food Security Bill (check here for more on that). But, of course, a progressive government can use the law in positive ways too - will have to see how it evolves in future

perhaps time the local community took charge

murali772 - 28 January, 2015 - 08:03

Recorded below are the relevant part of recent exchanges in SaveKoramangala YahooGroup, following eviction of vendors from the Lakshmi Devi park area by the BBMP. I have highlighted the comments I found significant and note-worthy, addressing of which could perhaps help arrive at solutions to the issues involved.
 
RS: The vendors in front of the lakshmi devi park have been thrown out again.. ..let us see our concern in action  in trying to get them back their livelyhoods.. 
 
NS: I think that 6th Block wanted the hawkers out ? Need to find out.
 
There is always the other side of a problem - the Nimby (Not in my Backyard ) mindset. A public toilet is a good idea except when it's right outside our house ! So I am entirely able to sympathize and empathize with those residents who wanted the hawkers out. 
 
It's not a simple matter of Vendors-  good - those who want to throw them out - bad. 
 
And it is not for us to take leadership here. 6th block must decide. If they want them out let's help the vendors relocate. Or a win win solution may be possible where the concerns of all are addressed. 
 
VM: Yes. The vendor issue has been made too simplified, that vacating vendors is bad and those wanting to vacate them are elitist.
 
However it must be also said that vacating vendors, ie street vendors, is against law and supreme court judgment. The supreme court ruling is simple enough, no vacation till street vendors commission/commitee in place, survey is done,alternative area found for them and then street vending act implemented.
 
But here are the ponderables.
 
  • Those fighting for street vendors rights are not really putting pressure to implement supreme court rulings, only using the "don't vacate till" clause. it helps street vendors to carry on during this twilight period.
  • The same  for " for vendors rights groups" are not doing anything internally within the street vendors community, to educate new vendors to abide by the street vending bill. This prohibits vending in some areas,residential streets being one of them. So in this twilight period the problem multiplies with every day new vendors coming into what would be against the spirit of the bill.
 
And yes,these are issues best handled at the third tier of government..the municipality, the ward commitees, local citizenry, etc. But we know that is missing. Therein lies the crux
 
RS: the reason I brought it up is below . the park frontage is not  what is the description.” This prohibits vending in some areas, residential streets being one of them.”
 
VM: Yes agree. if the 6 th block eviction has been from areas which is envisaged by the street vendors bill as OK for street vending, then there is a double issue.
 
However, the point we want to make is that it still should be a local decision of where in the geography street. Ending should be permitted. The bill envisages deciding areas earmarked for vending. it does not mean that vending can happen everywhere else than what is prohibited.
 
NS: The presence of vendors with street food there certainly adds to the vibrancy of the area. In recent times though there has been an over crowding there and I wonder whether there should be some minimum separation distance between 2 food carts. Also would like to see what are the waste disposal arrangements. I see many customers throw cups on the road side. If arrangements are well designed the community can work out a win win arrangement with vendors.
 
VM: Exactly. It is a local community which has to work this out. It's not for self styled spokespersons of vendors at large or some central/state authority. The days of local management of civic issues is not that far away, especially if we keep pegging at it.
 
Meanwhile, the following are the record notes of the proceedings in PIL - WP 13731 (for the full text, click here):
 
The BBMP chief starts the by now familiar tactic of pointing to obstructions created by street vendors and how his hands are now tied because of the new Street Vendors Act 2014 passed by the supreme court. The BENCH then goes through a 10-minute tutorial on this for his benefit (Have you read the act? What provisions have you made for hawkers? Have you declared any norms for the city to accommodate street vendors?  etc.)  Once again the Chief of BBMP tries to disown any responsibility by saying that the state government needs to act. After telling the chief that he should, like a literate person he is, read the act in its entirety and start acting on it. And then this nugget from BENCH – “The law (Street Vendor Act) is NOT coming in the way of maintaining footpaths”!
 
Essentially, BBMP is too lazy to formulate the rules based on the overall guidelines given in the Act, and, the "saviours" of the Street Vendors are happy with the status quo, and not in finding solutions to the issues involved.
 
Quite as stated, the onus lies largely on the local community, and it's perhaps time they took charge. 
 
 

GoI Street Vendors Act, 2014

murali772 - 29 July, 2014 - 10:47

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, published by the Ministry of Law & Justice, GoI, is added today as an attachment to the original post.
 

PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!