1. SC guidelines: Hawkers to hawk only in hawking zones. Space occupied to be 3'x'3.

 

Potential Problems?:

 

Who will ensure that hawkers do not a) hawk in areas where they are not supposed to?

 

Or b) occupy more space than they are supposed to (when 3' x 3' is clearly insufficient)?

 

 

 

 

---

 

2. SC guidelines: Give squatting space to about 25,000 hawkers. Give roving licences to the balance 2 - 3 lakh hawkers to go house to house to sell goods.

 

Potential Problems?:

 

a) I see a big danger in assuming that roving hawkers will not be troublesome / will not squat. I think not only will there no practical difference compared to other hawkers, but they will be difficult to regulate, ensure cleanliness, etc.

 

b) vegetable sellers carrying their ware on their heads or in push-carts will have to announce their presence / attract customers by shouting, ringing a bell, etc. Would this not create more nuisance and be less buyer-friendly than if these were hawking in known areas nearby e.g. to buy standard fresh foodstuff every morning?

 

Possible Solutions?:

 

a) Find locale-specific solutions for each natural market / natural market spots. This could be done via surveys by third-parties e.g. YUVA has done for Nallasopara. Hawkers already operating there and membership-based organisations of owners / occupiers of the area should also be consulted, along with the traffic police, etc.

 

b) Limit the number of roving licences, specify types of goods, timings, and geographical area also. Again in consultation with those in a).

---

  
3. SC guidelines: Since number of applicants will exceed the number of hawking spaces, this to be regulated / alloted by lottery every year.

 

 

a) what happens to the persons who get hawking rights one year and not the next year? If they can survive a year without hawking, then the poverty alleviation argument in favour of hawking does not hold good.

 

b) isn't it unfair for hawkers who have been hawking in an area for long to not get preference? Also home deliveries by new unknown hawkers is discomfiting.

 

c) guaranteed space reduces competiton or cartelisation can occur and prices may go up which defeats the purpose of allowing hawkers

 

d) it's very expensive and time-consuming to hold a lottery every year -- so there is a big danger that this will change into a system of licences / space  alloted permanently (although renewable yearly like many other BMC licences). This will be tantamount to giving away valuable land space free of charge.  

 

e) charging nominal amounts for licences means giving monopoly-like super profits to certain hawkers e.g. the ones at Chowpaty beach, and even all those individual ones selling food products which are very tasty and thus very popular. An example, a pani puri wala near the then Natraj Hotel on Marine Drive would bring 7000 puchkas daily, sell them all at Re. 1 each, thus having a turnover of Rs. 2 lakhs a month.

 

Possible Solutions?:

 

a) only certain goods / services to be allowed 

 

b) licences for selling certain items to be charged nominally e.g. vegetables and lottery system to be followed yearly 

 

c) licences for other items to be sold to highest bidder yearly

 

d) local membership-based organisations to be involved in making local norms for hawker selection criteria, items, amounts, etc.

---

4. SC guidelines: Create hawking zones based on space and not on consumer need.

 

 

a) consumers do need to buy some daily items conveniently e.g. vegetables, and this is easiest via natural markets i.e. which are en route to work / travel. 

 

b) consumers do need easy availability of some items e.g. food during lunch hours where there are insufficient eating places; food near tourist spots

 

c) certain food items / services are basically available only via hawkers e.g. paan, bhelpuri, cobblers. How would these be obtained later? 

 

d) Certain food-related hawkers invite a lot of vehicular traffic e.g. those selling paan, juice, eatables especially at night. This is partly because they provide a place to hang out for some time. 

 

e) creating markets e.g. Fashion Street is tantamount to giving away public spaces for trivial amounts. 

 

Possible Solutions?:

 

a) creating markets where there is lot of space is o.k. but if alternative uses of such space are preferred in the future, then it should be able to cancel such hawking zones

 

b) hawking zones greatly inconvenience residents (noise, filth, lowered real estate value, etc.) and thus some of the licence money collected by BMC could be spent for beautification of that area itself in consultation with local membership-based organisations.

 

c) hawking to be allowed in private property e.g. a building letting out its space to an hawker. The building to pay the licence fees to BMC while charging what it deems fit to the hawker.

 

d) maybe hawking could be allowed in open places which are awaiting alternate use? or in one section in a garden, etc., during certain hours (instead of outside it)

e) Consider other possibilities e.g. single stalls; a limited number of stalls; gathering of a restricted group of hawkers at a particular area during specified time periods selling certain category of goods. in consultation / approval of local owner / occupiers organisations. Or a 'polyclinic' type concept -- i.e. space let out by the hour. Or maybe space to be compulsorily provided in new housing societies.

 

---

Once all of the above are sort of 'agreed upon', then we all can discuss about systems that should be in place to make them effectively work. If there are other points of the Supreme Court or three-member committee suggestions that worry you, please email.

 

 

If you have or know of any studies or articles, please send or inform us for including in the Hawkers Section in www.karmayog.org

Regards,
Vinay