LexGAINDA RAM AND OTHERS versus M.C.D. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2010] 12 S.C.R. 996 GAINDA RAM AND OTHERS v. M.C.D. AND OTHERS I.A. Nos.1, 3 & 4 in I.A. No.1 in I.A. No.407 I.A. Nos.9 & 10 in I.A. No.407 B IN W.P.(C) N0.1699 OF 1987 OCTOBER 08, 2010 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] C Hawker matters: Legislation - Need for- Regulation of squatters/hawkers in Delhi - Schemes evolved by New Delhi Municipal Corporation and Municipal Corporation of Delhi from time to D time on directions by Supreme Court - Right to carry on hawking on pavements under control of MCD and NDMC - Claim of by hawkers - Complaint alleging that steps taken by NDMC and MCD preventing them from carrying hawking and vending - Held: Hawkers have a fundamental right to carry on hawking under Article 19(1) (g) - It is subject to E reasonable restrictions imposed by law - National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004 and Scheme framed by NDMC cannot be called law - National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2009 which is up to 31.12.2010, and Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and F Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2009 have been enacted to regulate the fundamental right of street hawking and street vending - Numerous matters are pending before Supreme Cowt - Thus, structured regulation and legislation imminently necessary in public interest, to control and regulate G fundamental right of hawking of vendors and hawkers - Appropriate Government directed to enact a law to regulate hawking, before 30.06.2011 - Till such time, grievances of hawkers/vendors to be redressed by internal dispute redressal H 996 GAINDA RAM AND ORS. v. M.C.D. AND ORS. 997 mechanisms provided in the Schemes- Writ petition and IA 's A disposed of - Municipalities - New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 - ss. 225, 226, 330 and 369(2) - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act; 1957 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6). The instant matters are with regard to regulation of hawking on the streets of Delhi. In *Sadan Singh's case, the Supreme Court _laid down certain guidelines for regulating citizen's right to carry on hawking business on B the streets. Pursuant thereto, the New Delhi Municipal C Council (NDMC) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) framed Schemes to regulate hawking and street vending. The said Schemes wer-e modified from time to time by the order passed by the Supreme Court. The Thareja Committee and Chaturvedi Committee were formed to examine the claims of the hawkers but many D of the hawkers were .not allotted sites. Meanwhile, several hawkers filed· cases before the Supreme Court. Subsequently, NDMC and MCD also framed Schemes for hawkers and squatters following the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004. This Court directed the E municipal authoriti_es to implement the Scheme approved by the Court. The hawkers filed the instant writ petition and interim applications claiming a right to carry on business in F different parts of the pavements under the control of MCD and NDMC; and complaining about steps taken by the NDMC and MCD to prevent them from hawking and vending. Disposing of the writ petition and the IA's, the Court G HELD: 1.1 The hawkers' and squatters' or vendors' right to carry on hawking has been recognized as fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the H 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 12 S.C.R. A Constitution of India, 1950 but such right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. At the same time the right of the commuters to move freely and use the roads without any impediment is also a fundamental right under Article B 19(1)(d). These two apparently conflicting rights must be harmonized and regulated by subjecting them to reasonable restrictions only under a law. [Paras 42 and 77] (1026-B; 1043-H; 1044-A] C *Sodan Singh and Ors. vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 155 - followed. Pyare Lal vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another AIR 1968 SC 133 - distinguished. 0 1.2 The rights under Article 19(1 )(g) can only be controlled by law as contemplated in Article 19(6). Such law can impose reasonable restrictions. The reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) can be imposed either by existing law or by a law E which may be made by a State in the interest of general public. Therefore, nothing short of law can impose reasona
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.