1992 (3) TMI 344 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to trade on pavements under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Regulation and scrutiny of claims by pavement hawkers.
3. Implementation of NDMC and MCD schemes for regulating street hawking.

Summary:

1. Right to Trade on Pavements:
A large number of writ petitions were filed u/s Article 32 of the Constitution by pavement-traders in Delhi, claiming that the Municipal Authorities were violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 by not permitting them to trade on streets and footpaths. The Constitution Bench in Sodan Singh & Others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Others [1989] 4 SCC 155 concluded that the right to carry on trade or business on street pavements, if properly regulated, cannot be denied. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions u/s Article 19(6). The Bench clarified that there is no fundamental right to occupy a specific place on the pavement permanently.

2. Regulation and Scrutiny of Claims by Pavement Hawkers:
NDMC prepared a scheme (Resolution No. 28 dated 10th November 1989) for regulating street hawking. A Committee was appointed to examine the claims of squatters and identify suitable areas for street hawking. The Committee scrutinized claims based on documents such as receipts, police challans, and toleration slips. A grievance was raised that the Committee's strict standard of proof resulted in injustice to genuine claimants. The Court directed the Committee to review the rejected claims if additional authentic proof is provided and to consider fresh claims in Sarojini Nagar area with relaxed proof criteria.

3. Implementation of NDMC and MCD Schemes for Regulating Street Hawking:
The NDMC scheme allowed squatting in specific areas, excluding sensitive zones like Connaught Place/Circus area. The Court issued interim orders permitting hawking under regulated conditions until the final scheme is implemented. For the MCD area, a scheme of open tehbazari was evolved, permitting squatting on designated spots. The MCD divided the city into ten zones and identified 288 squatting areas. The Court directed public advertisements to invite objections to the proposed scheme and instructed the Committee to finalize the scheme after considering the objections.

Final Directions:
1. The Thareja Committee to review rejected claims if additional proof is provided.
2. Fresh claims in Sarojini Nagar to be scrutinized with relaxed criteria.
3. Public advertisements to invite objections to the MCD scheme.
4. Registry of the Court to direct petitioners to approach the Thareja Committee for claims concerning the five zones.
5. Interim stay orders to continue for scrutinized claims; status quo for rejected claims pending review.
6. The Committee to draw up lists of eligible squatters/hawkers for future regulation.

All NDMC cases falling under the zones created under Resolution No. 28 were disposed of with no order as to costs. The advertisement cost will be borne by NDMC. The above order will guide all concerned, including the Registry of this Court, regarding cases of squatters/hawkers. Petitions were disposed of.