Need to redraft definition of street vendor, says HC

Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, November 28

More than four years after the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, came into existence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued a notice to the Union of India and the UT Administration after taking suo motu cognisance of street vendor’s definition contained in it.

The Bench of Chief Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Amit Rawal also fixed January 18 as the next date of hearing in the matter. In his note taking suo motu cognisance of the issue, Justice Rawal said the vires or the legal powers of the Act, enacted by the Centre, were required to be challenged as there would be no place for pedestrians in any city or town to walk on if the definition was “construed as it is”.

Elaborating on the need for redrafting the definition, Justice Rawal said a “street vendor” could offer services to the public “not only on streets, but also on a lane, sidewalk, footpath, pavement, public park or any other public place or private area from a temporary built-up structure or by moving from place to place, including hawker, peddler and squatter”.

Justice Rawal said people, as a necessary corollary, would be forced to walk on the road, resulting in its truncations. It would lead to traffic congestion and might even result in accidents.

Justice Rawal further asserted that the use of adulterated water or material at tea stalls, the utilisation of synthetic colour by fruit vendors, non-provision of garbage disposal, which was against the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan launched by the government, open laundry and defecation might lead to the spread of an epidemic — dengue included. Besides, the street vendors also indulged in promotion and grossly illegal practice of child labour.

Referring to the annual Rose Festival in Chandigarh, Justice Rawal added that a PILwas filed for restraining the UT and the MC from permitting vendors to sell eatables and other material. Following the High Court intervention, the UTgave an undertaking not to grant permission. However, the definition of “street vendor”, in the court’s view, was required to be “redrafted/redefined” as it would result in a chaos.

Justice Rawal said the HC was seized of issues such as making provisions for cycle tracks and repair of footpaths. But, apparently the definition of street vendor went unnoticed. “...I am constrained to take suo motu notice qua vices of the Act of 2014, pertaining to the definition of street vendor,” he said, while requesting Chief Justice Krishna Murari to treat the suo motu notice as a PILor consider the points in pending writ petitions.