Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22.3. The second judgment relied upon is Gainda Ram v. MCD, (2010) 10 SCC 715 (paragraphs 48, 50, 54-56, 59-64 and 67-71) to submit that the old schemes were in force till 30.06.2011 and not thereafter and thus, the previous declaration of any area as a non-vending zone shall be rendered a nullity.

22.4. Since no law was forthcoming, the Apex Court in Gainda Ram v.

MCD, (2013) 11 SCC 623 (paragraphs 2, 4 and 5) observed that the law had still not been passed and the Supreme Court continued to grapple with the problem of regulation of street vendors. Time was sought by the Government to consult the public and the authorities concerned, pursuant to which, the Supreme Court directed complete status quo in respect of all engaged in hawking and street vending as on date. The status quo was to continue until the next date of hearing, i.e. 05.03.2013. At the same time, a direction was passed to this Court not to entertain any petition by or against the hawkers and street vendors till the matter is heard and decided by the Supreme Court.

30. At the time, the Apex Court was dealing with the problem of influx of population to urban centres and proliferation of street vendors in W.P. (C) 1699/1987. Numerous petitions and applications were being filed before the Supreme Court, but the erstwhile MCD maintained that the area was a no-squatting/no-vending zone.

31. Despite the bomb blast, order of the Lieutenant Governor dated 13.11.1996 and various orders of the Supreme Court from time to time, respondent no.8/NASVI has sought to allege that owing to Sudhir Madan (Supra), Gainda Ram (Supra) and Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union (Supra), followed by the new Act solely empowering the Town Vending Committee to declare any area as a no-vending zone, no area can be said to be a no-vending zone.

68. Certain broad facts cannot be lost sight of. Whatever power this Court may have had, 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 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 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 unorganised poor sector in our society. Therefore, structured regulation and legislation is urgently necessary to control and regulate the fundamental right of hawking of these vendors and hawkers.

69. 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 by the 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.