The Delhi High Court on Saturday said that no right is absolute and it needs to be balanced with the rights of others. Street vendors They have a fundamental right but when they use a public road, they affect someone else’s right to walk.
While hearing the petitions of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, a bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said that the hawkers should get proper places to sit and proper kiosks in every market.
“They should have proper licence. Then you need not give ‘hafta’ to the police,” the court said.
The court asked what were the “bottlenecks” in the implementation of the Act. “What’s the hesitation for the last seven years?”
The bench said that the authorities should come out with the street vending plan keeping in mind the aspects like safety, security, cleanliness, roads etc.
Officials are required to make a plan every five years, but “unfortunately, there is no plan for now”, it said.
“Those who are protesting should be required to disclose their assets and income. Street sellers have fundamental rights but no rights are absolute. Even if he is an old man, he should give way so that Properly allocated the old site.When you want to use a public way or road, you are imposing someone else’s right to walk.
“It cannot happen that no one can touch you. There should be some brain experiment as to what can be allowed. You have to see the density of the area, how many shops can be allowed,” the bench said.
The court began hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Street Vendors Act, its implementation, the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019 and other related provisions of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Issues raised by various market associations and vendors and hawkers.
Senior advocate Sanjeev Ralli, appearing for the New Delhi Traders Association, which represents shop owners and operators in the Connaught Place (CP) area, explained to the bench the previous judgments on the issue and how things had progressed before the courts.
The rally cited a previous judgment with advocate Mohit Mudgal saying that no hawker can defeat the rights of other citizens.
When some lawyers tried to intervene and make submissions, the court said, “We want to first see what judgments were given, then in that context we want to see how the Street Vendors Act came into being. We are at our loss.” Don’t want to. Center.”
“It’s a dynamic situation. What we’re seeing is the Act that came in 2014 and its implementation … there are more and more areas. There may be more people who can be allowed to sell. So we have to see Will act and plan but first, the street vending scheme has to come,” adding that, “we are not colored by any drawings or paints.”
The bench observed, “Can it be said that just because the Act is not being implemented properly, the vendors will sit wherever they want. We want proper implementation of the Act so that the problems of the vendors can be eliminated. There should be a proper place for this, proper kiosk in every market.”
The court heard Rally’s arguments and listed the matter for further hearing on November 18.
This story has been published without modification in text from a wire agency feed. Only the title has been changed.
Don’t miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint.
download
Our App Now!!
.