Transcript of BMC – NGO Council Meeting to discuss hawkers and hawking zones – held on 14-04-06 from 3:30 p.m. to 6:45 pm at the Conference Room, 3^rd Floor, BMC Annexe Building, CST, Mumbai

27   Participants

Shri Subrat Ratho,      Additional Municipal Commissioner, BMC
S S Gholap,                Superintendent of Licences, BMC
S N Amberkar,          Joint Superintendent of Licences, BMC
V D Gurav,                Deputy Superintendent of Licences, BMC

Dr. Sharit Bhowmik,      Professor, University of Mumbai, Member - National
Policy on Street Vendors
Gerson Da Cunha,         CitiSpace / AGNI
Naryana Kathpalia,        CitiSpace, a respondent in Supreme Court in Hawker
Matter
Meher Rafaat,                CitiSpace
Vidya Vaidya,                H-West / CitiSpace
Madhao Imartey,            CitiSpace
Shaikh Pervez,                Urban Street Vendors Lok Seva Kendra, Andheri W
Wasim Siddiqui,              Town Secr, Urban Street Vendors Lok Seva Kendra, Andheri W
Mackenzey Dabre,          YUVA, Nare Park BMC School, Parel
Jagdish Patankar,             YUVA
Indrani Malkani,               Joint Area Action Group - D Ward; ALM Little
Gibbs Road
Bhaskar Prabhu,              F - South Ward Citizens Forum & Mahiti Adhikar
Manch
Francis Menezes,             Co-ordinator, SEVA - E Ward Tenants
Association, Byculla
A V Shenoy,                    Proctor Road Neighbourhood Citizen's Forum
Atul R Vora,                    R - South Ward - Mathurdas Road Rahvasi Sang
& Kandivali Vyapari Mandal
G R Vora,                        Flank Road Citizen's Forum
Navin Pandya,                 Society And You
Jonathan Anjaria,             Urban Researcher, University Of California,
Santa Cruz, USA
Laiq Qureshi,                  Correspondent, DNA
Aditi Sharma,                  Correspondent, Mumbai Mirror
Yogesh Sadhwani,           Correspondent, Times Property
Tanya Mahajan,              Volunteer, Karmayog
Vinay Somani,                 Karmayog, Convenor NGO Council

DNA - reported on the meeting in DNA, 17 April 2006, Pg 8
http://digital.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?edorsup=Main&queryed=9&querypage
=8&boxid=30858886&parentid=14658&eddate=04/17/2006

[The meeting was initiated by the NGO Council. Mr. Ratho very willingly responded and the meeting was held in the BMC Conference Room even though it was a holiday. To my knowledge, a meeting such as this, bringing together organisations and people having diverse and even extreme viewpoints on the hawker issue has been rarely held. The transcript below by Tanya Mahajan taking notes during the meeting highlights the value of such deliberations and the need to find doable, enforceable, holistic solutions. This is the approach that we are trying to adopt in the NGO Council via emails and meetings on particular issues, and inviting opinions publicly by displaying on www.karmayog.org . We will not be making formal minutes of the meeting. If any comments have been left out, please email. Readers are requested to give their viewpoints and suggestions at the earliest. Vinay]

(While waiting for Mr. Ratho to arrive, Prof. Bhowmik gave a background on his association with the National Street Vendors Policy)

Prof. Sharit Bhowmik:             NASVI, SEWA, etc, conducted a study of street vendors in 7 cities in India and presented this study to the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, with a demand to frame a national policy for street vendors, similar to the National Slum Policy. Thereafte,r in May 2000, a meeting was held in Vigyan Bhavan in Delhi where this report was presented followed by 2 days of discussion (Mr. Jagmohan was the Minister of UD). A 25 member Task Force was set up as a result which included 2 members from Mumbai: (Mr.Chandrasekhar was one of the members, but he didn’t attend any meetings of the task force.) Mr. Bhowmik himself was co-opted as an expert. After a few meetings, a 6 member Drafting Committee was set up to frame the National Street Vendors Policy, that included Renana Jhabvala (SEWA), Amodh Kant (Police), Member Secretary, UD, Prof Bhowmik, and the Chairperson of HUDCO as Convenor of this Committee.

            On 30th Sept. 2003, the National Street Vendors Policy was passed by the Task Force, then circulated through the Law Ministry, and in Jan. 2004, it was passed by the Cabinet. All Chief Secretaries and Chief Executives of all States were told to take action on the recommendations in the Policy. Thereafter, the Govt. at the Centre changed, and as of Oct.2005, the Ministry is now the Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation, headed by Kumari Shailaja, who had called a meeting of all Nodal Officers, who had agreed that the National Street vendors Policy should be passed.

(Mr. Ratho arrived, and a round of introductions followed)

Vinay: From the time we have initiated discussions on the issue of hawkers in Mumbai, we have broadly received 3 kinds of views:

1) Those who don’t see a need to discuss as the matter is being debated in the Supreme Court

            2) Those who have a view and are interested in discussions

            3) Those who are confused or curious and would like to know more about the issue.

This meeting has been called to get all the viewpoints on this issue on the table.

Mr.Ratho: The BMC is required to make suggestions to the SC based on the last order of 23^rd March. BMC has to decide:

1) whether to react only to the 3-member committee reports that has made recommendations for modifications in some Wards

2) whether to get feedback only from its ward Officers

3) whether to take a liberal or not a liberal view

4) whether to take into account what concerned citizens / hawkers may have to say in general, or specifically to the 3-member committee’s reports

BMC is open to suggestions regarding the suggested modifications to hawking and non-hawking zones made by the Committee, especially if these suggestions are from outside the BMC, from people who are knowledgeable about the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court. BMC is, most of all, keen to resolve the issue in the long term, in a sustainable manner.

At the end of this discussion or exercise, BMC can either conclude that:

a) the suggested guidelines and rules are acceptable and beneficial, or

b) the suggested guidelines require some changes

Whether BMC suggests or not, the 3 member Committee has already made its suggestions, and each of their report has different approaches.

Pervez: How much time do we have to make these suggestions to the BMC?

Mr.Ratho: 2 weeks approximately.

We are looking at general views, not suggestions on specific roads. We are looking at views about the guidelines suggested by the Supreme Court, and the modifications to these suggested by the 3 member committee – whether to agree or not to these modifications, and beyond that, we are looking for suggestions for better solutions.

Gerson:            I was not aware that this meeting was to discuss the modifications suggested by the 3 member committee. Had I known, I would have read up on the reports made by the Committee. I would like to know what is the group that is meeting here today to discuss this issue:

Ratho: It is a gathering of citizens and citizen bodies with views / opinions on hawkers

Gerson: What is the force of the opinions that this group will reach?

Nayana: I assume all those who are here know what the SC guidelines are.

Mr.Ratho:             BMC will be making its suggestions to the SC, even if those who are here are not aware of the SC guidelines.

Nayana:            It is an option for BMC to make suggestions to the SC, just as it is an option for us to speak or not at this meeting.

Sharit:   We should discuss policy, not individual roads. The SC has gone back to the National Policy for Street Vendors, so let us look at that, and see if it is possible to implement schemes under that policy.

            The Supreme Court case is based on existing laws in the States – Bihar and Delhi have made the requisite legal changes to get the Policy implemented; Maharashtra has not done that – has not even set up the Ward Committees / Town Vending Committees.

Nayana: This question was brought up in the beginning of the SC case through the SLPs, and the judge said that if you want the National Street vendors policy to be followed, withdraw the SLP. Why are we going back to the National Street vendors policy?

Mr.Ratho: The BMC is to comment on the National Street Vendors policy and its implementability.

Nayana: We are opening up the national Street Vendors policy when the Judge said to drop it!

Mr.Ratho: Are you saying that there is no need to discuss the National Policy?

Nayana:             The Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation is also in the SC – they can raise the issue and discuss it if they want.

Sharit:   No, the Ministry is not in Court – in fact, after one of the last hearings, Kumari Shailaja specifically had a meeting to discuss how to become a party in the Bombay hawkers case.

Gerson:             This is an ill prepared meeting – you didn’t say that we are to comment on the 3 member committee reports – we haven’t read the reports – so how can we comment?

                         We didn’t know that the 3 member committee has recommended changes, and that we are to respond to that – had we known, we would have read the reports.

Sharit:   You are just being disruptive of the meeting – we can still discuss on the policy matters and general views.

Mr.Ratho: Let me summarize for your benefit:

1) We can discuss the views of the 3 member committee for those who are aware of it.

2) we are not going to discuss individual roads

3) we can discuss general views and broad guidelines.

So, if anyone has anything to contribute on this, please share that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Indrani: In our ALM, we had looked at the integration of the stake-holders in Malabar Hill, and in doing this under the SC guidelines. We realised through the process that we had to understand:

-         who is a hawker?

-         concerns of residents – in areas where there are no hawkers, why should  strangers be introduced as hawkers?

-         hawkers services are used by citizens

We did a study of hawkers in the area, licensed and unlicensed, and realised that some of them have been in the area for 30 years, and that hawkers of certain special services serve special requirements of people, and that to resolve the issue, all stake-holders are to be consulted. We felt that it would be better to have people who are known for 30 years, rather than new ones, from a safety angle. Hence integrate these “old” hawkers, i.e. find a place (after looking at traffic and pedestrian concerns) within the community for them, in a manner that doesn’t inconvenience the community.

Gerson: even if this is a no-hawking zone?

Indrani: we are not going into zones – and at the time that we did this, the zones were not specified. In any case, the zones are not frozen, and can be modified if felt necessary.

Mr.Ratho: Are you referring to the list of zones that have been specified?

Indrani: We had made our plan before the SC guidelines had been made.

Vinay: Are there many local citizens supporting this plan?

Indrani: This is difficult to say, as citizens who say they oppose the plan, themselves patronise the hawkers, but the re-location / integration plan that we took up is well known and accepted in the community.

Sharit: This is one of the sensible suggestions by an ALM, including understanding who is a hawker. etc.

Vinay: What about new hawkers who want to hawk in an area like Kamla Nehru Park?

Indrani: Apart from the 3 unlicensed hawkers who served on Little Gibbs Road, there were other hawkers who served the needs of the floating population (and not the locaility) at Kamla Nehru Park. The view was that the older hawkers are to be integrated at this spot also.

Vinay: How many hawkers?

Indrani: 15

Gerson: Are we really discussing Kamla Nehru Park?

Mr.Ratho: It is an example that would help us understand possible issues.

Bhowmik: It is a case study.

Mr.Ratho: Could you discuss this plan in the context of the SC guidelines?

Indrani: None have been violated.

Mr.Ratho: the SC has specified hawking and non-hawking zones, distances from schools, stations, process of declaring hawking and non-hawking zones, etc. Do you suggest based on your experiences that residents of a locality should take charge?

Indrani: The residents, who are best served by the services that hawkers offer, should take charge and suggest a solution, provided the hawkers do not inconvenience the community.

Mr.Ratho: How do you have a process other than what the SC has said, where the 3 member committee has recommended  pitches in hawking zones for 23000 hawkers out of 2 lakhs that will be decided through lottery – and that will not be the old hawkers whom you know and trust. How do we set up processes to do what you have done?

Indrani: We identified a suitable place jointly with the Ward Officer, we identified the hawkers, through the pauti system; the residents authenticated the claims of the hawkers; we made a file on each hawker, there was joint inspection with BMC regarding the feasibility of re-locating, inconvenience caused, appropriate place for re-location – hawkers were also consulted – they were made aware of a code of conduct, and they are monitored. To date, it is working in our area.

Presently, the locations where hawkers sit is often inappropriate from the traffic and hygiene point of view- hence the right identification of where the hawker should be located is critical.

Mr.Ratho: So you are saying that if hawkers are to be in a particular area, residents to decide where, etc.

Gerson: Did you make a recommendation to the 3-member committee?

Indrani: Yes, we did.

Vinay: Why would residents want to allow hawkers at Kamla Nehru Park?

Indrani: The people who live there are not the only stakeholders / or users, be it for any issue, even cleanliness. Everybody must participate; people take food into the Hanging Gardens, though it is not allowed; BMC is not able to monitor; the hawkers themselves regulate and exercise self-discipline, and in the Swachha Mumbai Abhiyan, our area got a prize for this. Integrate all the stake-holders of a working area and then make it work.

Meher: You feel that such a locale-specific policy is the appropriate solution? But there would be 10,000 such locales, so how to implement such a micro-managed scheme? Is it possible?

Shenoy: For public places / tourist places, some proper guidelines are needed.

Indrani: Hawkers who cater to tourist areas can also be integrated.

Mr.Ratho: So, in a residential area, residents decide. In a tourist area, who decides how many, who shall sit, etc?

Indrani: We need to do a locale specific study in partnership with the local citizen groups and the authorities to reach a solution, like YUVA has done.

Nayana: It will take another 20 years.

Sharit: An independent agency like TISS/YUVA can do the studies.

Mr.Ratho: after that, who decides?

Vinay: So we are looking at locale specific solutions for residential areas or public / tourist areas – for all of which there will be overall guidelines and norms specified, within which residents may decide.

Since residents in a hawking zone are being inconvenienced and are sacrificing something (more traffic, noise etc.), could it be suggested that a portion of the BMC collected fees are utilised for the improvement of that particular area / locality?

Mr. Ratho: I personally don’t agree with that suggestion.
Atul: Hawkers have captured all of the area; there is no way to improve an area.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

YUVA: We had looked at the issue of hawkers in the context of the urban poor and along with NGOs, local area citizens, authorities like BMC, Police, CIDCO, we have proposed an alternative model for Nallasopara. We studied the hawkers, conducted a survey to determine needs of stakeholders, held discussions with all stakeholders, including housing societies, etc. and proposed some guidelines. Our study covers 1500 hawkers. The conclusion from this study was that people need hawkers, but are also inconvenienced by them; hence an integrated plan is required, that includes planning for expansion, not only of hawkers, but of increased traffic, with roads staying the same, etc. which causes hawkers to be blamed for congestion. We proposed a short term plan as well as a long term plan for the next 20 years.

Mr.Ratho: Has this plan been implemented?

YUVA: We have submitted the report to the concerned Nagar Palikas, and a Committee has been formed who will integrate the study into the DP Plan which is currently under preparation.

Mr.Ratho: So right now what is the situation?

YUVA: Evictions have stopped, and some of the short term solutions which involve changes in traffic and roads are being considered.

Mr.Ratho: What is the percentage improvement that has happened?

YUVA: The authorities are in the process of considering implementing all the short term measures suggested.

Meher: Have the authorities accepted your study?

YUVA: Yes, they have accepted the study and are considering the proposals.

Meher: How much time did the study take?

YUVA: 2 years, and Rs.3 lakhs.

Vinay: I have gone through the study and it is an excellent one, and my conclusions from it are that - you cannot wish away hawkers hence they have to be integrated; and there must be future planning also. The study has identified 4 types of hawkers and their distinct space requirements, which is different from the SC guidelines that has a standard pitch size specified for all hawkers in hawking zones. The study has details of all types and numbers of hawkers in each area studies, and is thus not abstract; it includes photographs of existing areas with their problems and how to regulate. It links hawkers and parking of rickshaws and how to solve this; it has detailed plans for each area studied, with a proposal for improvement, including innovative ideas, such as using space below flyovers, etc.

Mr.Ratho: You have studied the hawkers in this area in detail; were you able to accommodate all in the proposal? Do you think that in other areas in Mumbai, all hawkers can be accommodated?

YUVA: If you do a Ward wise study with all stake-holders involved, it may be possible to accommodate.

Mr.Ratho: In Mumbai, distribution of hawkers is not equal ward wise; some wards have a higher concentration than others; hence hawkers may not be willing to re-locate even within the same ward. Hence the Mumbai situation is different. Do you have a solution for this?

YUVA: If we look at the A-Ward, hawkers are divided by activity, such as fashion Street, Food stalls in Khau Gully, etc. Space is the main constraint in accommodating all hawkers, and we need to look at innovative solutions such as underground plazas to accommodate all hawkers and if that happens, the hawkers must be willing to re-locate.

Vinay: In your study, you have taken into account primarily the views of the hawkers and those of the authorities; but less of the residents of that area, isn’t it?

YUVA: We have had some consultation with residents / users of the area also.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Atul: We need hawkers, but we want discipline. In the same day, as a resident, I have 2 views on the situation, depending on whether I am buying something from the hawker or passing through the areas.

Sharit: Hawkers are not considered legal, and hence have no actual stake in the area that they occupy, and hence have less incentive to keep it clean, etc. One of the recommendations of the National Policy is that resident associations (including slums, chawls) must be involved while locating hawkers.

Meher: Would such a micro-managed scheme be manageable? Or will having such different solutions for each area result in the official proliferation of the very  situation that we have gone to Court to rectify?

Sharit: The YUVA solution has proposed a micro-solution under the National Policy.

Mr.Ratho: We need systemic solutions.

Sharit: Ward Committees can provide that system – it is already being done in Delhi, where advertisements for 3 Wards have been announced where membership-based organisations (such as trade unions, federations) have been invited.

Nayana: For the Delhi Plan, the schemes for hawkers are decided ward-wise – and the hawkers are being allowed to use the pavements, which are very broad. In Bombay, there are no pavements available.

Pervez: I can give an example of a micro-solution that was proposed and worked in  Mumbai. In Andheri, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the area closed down the hawkers market for 3 days, and, in that time, introduced regulations about size, time, discipline, etc. 50% of the problems were solved through this – then the DMC changed, the hawkers didn’t have discipline, and didn’t care to continue with that system, and hence went back to the earlier situation.

Mr.Ratho: We need sustainable solutions. So how do we do that?

Pervez: Make a system for the whole city. Within that, let the Ward Officer be responsible for specific schemes.

Meher: A general Policy is needed for the city

Mr.Ratho: So who will make this general policy?

Pervez: Classify the vendors; all are not needed; make a Local Committee, as suggested by Bhowmik and Indrani.

Sharit: We need to formalise the Ward Committees that include resident associations, hawkers, Police, BMC, etc.

Meher: But how will these suggestions become a city-wide policy? Any suggestion that is being made here has to pass that test before being considered.

Mr.Ratho: You are proposing a Ward level recognised Committee that may be able to decide on the basis of general recommendations?

Nayana: But when this Case was in the High Court, this exercise was undertaken, for all 24 wards – it took 2 months, and 450 roads were selected. This was debated for 3 years, so a process of consultation has already been gone through, which has brought us where we are today. Are we suggesting that we go back? Between 1998 and 2001, consultation has already happened.

Meher: Unless there are some radical new parameters, there is no need to question where we are.

Mr.Ratho: Do you think (let the Court judgement be kept aside for the moment – we will suggest small changes to that) that as per the processes outlined in the guidelines, the system will work to your satisfaction?

Nayana: It will work in congested areas depending on the BMC and Police. It depends on the will of the State Government, since we know that BMC cannot implement with existing infrastructure.

The judgement is a guideline that in areas of congestion, pedestrians can walk.

If the order is as it stands today, and there is the will to implement, it will work substantially. So we must weigh that in balance, rather than re-open the order. Let us give it a try for 1-2 years, and then see what emerges.

Meher: We are losing time, and it is very important for the city to resolve this, against delaying the process for some sterling idea.

Nayana: In 1998, Citispace went to the SC to direct the MCGM to implement the 1985 judgement – to have a system for the management of roads for the city, not for individual roads.

Mr.Ratho: Are you in agreement with the report of the 3 member committee?

Nayana: No. They have flouted several of the norms / guidelines while selecting the roads. Approx. 20-50 roads have flouted these norms.

Mr.Ratho: Do you think fear of contempt of the SC will create the will to implement the order ( Meher (interrupting): It should be love for the city rather than fear of contempt.) where out of 2,50,000 hawkers, 20,000 will be accommodated in the hawking zones, and the balance will not?

Nayana: The balance can be wherever they are, but not in hawking zones, they will be roving hawkers. 1,80,000 balance should be given licences to work as roving hawkers in all zones.

Mr.Ratho: If from the 1,80,000 roving hawkers, 1,60,000 decide to squat in some places, then can the BMC and police implement?

Meher: Do you have the manpower?

Mr.Ratho: BMC has gone on record to the SC stating that we don’t have the manpower. We can remove the hawkers once, after that the Police has to take over to ensure that they do not come back.

Vidya: Fine the hawkers – make it unviable for them to come back.

Mr.Ratho: We have a system as follows: the hawkers run away when we remove the encroachments, we confiscate their goods. There is a fine of Rs.10,000 for being caught in a non-hawking zone, but no hawker ever comes back to claim the goods; instead they go back to the same spot and hawk.

Vidya: The Police has agreed to help the BMC in evicting and keeping hawkers off the no-hawking zones.

Sharit: 1,60,000 roving hawkers will not work.

Mr.Ratho: Roving means that you don’t have a licence to a particular spot, you go from house to house. Because we can accommodate only limited numbers, the balance will be roving.

Bhaskar: Roving hawkers is not the solution; we should look at solutions like weekly markets, etc – the numbers of hawkers is just too large for all to be roving.

Nayana: There are solutions to deal with the numbers: some will be accommodated in the pitches in the hawking zones, some will be roving, and some will be accommodated in the 5 market plots of BMC which can be converted into hawking plazas.

Meher: Those hawkers who create nuisance are the permanent ones – roving hawkers don’t create nuisance.

Atul: The permanent hawkers live at the very spots where they hawk.

Sharit: No, they don’t stay there.

Mr.Ratho: So should we accept the SC guidelines, or in the interest of time, not  question it.

Navin: we are debating this since 1985 – when will it be enforced?

Mr.Ratho: I can categorically state that BMC has implemented everything in the SC guidelines

Nayana: No, that is not true, cooking is banned, still there are hawkers cooking.

Mr.Ratho: I can show you statistics to support that we have evicted hawkers who cook.

Meher: Mr.Ratho’s statement tells us what success the implementation will have.

Vinay: Hence the need for do-able solutions; we know that BMC does not have the infrastructure, so within that how do we get good laws implemented?

Sharit: Some of the people not represented here, like slum dwellers may also have a solution. More than 60% of Mumbai live in slums. They need the cheap goods that hawkers sell.

Mr.Ratho: Are we in a position to go the SC and suggest changes that would make it more enforceable?

Shenoy: BMC should commit how much it can implement and enforce.

Mr.Ratho: We have already done that

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Vinay: One of the other points to discuss is about selection by lottery – there are different perceptions

Pervez: According to us the lottery will be held once, thereafter licence will be issued for 1 year, renewable every year.

Mr.Ratho: That is not our understanding of the SC guidelines. Lottery has to be held every year to select who will hawk.

Pervez: Then we will demand that hawking and non-hawking zones should also be looked at afresh every year.

Sharit: I don’t agree with licensing.

Bhaskar: I don’t know how the lottery system will work

Mr.Ratho: Suppose the number of places is less than the hawkers, then what is the process to decide?

My take is that Citispace is happy with the judgment because it is a good judgement from their viewpoint, and the hawkers are happy with it because it is un-implementable.

Vinay: Unimplementability is the precise problem.

Indrani: Register all hawkers; have a system of grading; through a natural process and timings, they will fill up the available places.

Atul: The lottery system is the solution

Pervez: We can consider granting odd and even days to different hawkers, so that more are benefited from the places available.

Jon: In my studies, I have observed that there are natural systems already in place amongst the hawkers – it’s not all anarchy. We need to find a system based on the natural systems that are already there, rather than remove the existing hawkers and impose a new system with new hawkers.

Vinay: Gerson had pointed out in an email an hour ago that actually it’s not about hawkers, but about hawker lords.

Jon: These are myths about hawker lords and mafia – I have not come across any in my studies.

Sharit: Is there evidence of such mafia?

Nayana: It is not the mafia – these are controllers of hawker pitches.

Indrani: The hawkers must self-regulate.

Ratho: But can we let things be? Is minimal intervention the solution?

Jon: Self regulation is essential by the hawkers.

Ratho: What can BMC do to ensure self-regulation by hawkers?

Sharit: Provide infrastructure: water, toilets

Mr.Ratho: Suppose we were to provide these services, what are the next 3-4 steps for BMC to regulate.

Jon: One of the other solutions is multiple uses of land at different times – e.g. allow hawking on pavements at night. This also ensures other things like safety in business districts like Nariman Point, for example.

-------------------------------------------------------

Bhaskar: Because of changing lifestyles, where both men and women are now working, people want to buy from near the railway station when they return home – so the markets have to be near the station – as is the natural market today.

Mr.Ratho: Railway stations are the places that the hawkers choose – but we get maximum complaints from citizens and the media about hawkers at railway stations.

What is to be done in this case?

Bhaskar: At Dadar, the hawkers were removed, shifted to a building – but they have left that and come back again.

Mr.Ratho: What is the solution?

Sharit: Can the BMC do a case-wise study of stations – find space near each station that is the natural market.

Mr.Ratho: We had asked hawkers themselves for a solution for railway stations – no one came forward.

Bhaskar: why did the hawking plaza in Dadar fail?

Mr.Ratho: The concept of ‘hawking paza’ itself is a contradiction

Pervez: For Malad West, we can think of a solution for the hawkers around the Railway Station.

Mr.Ratho: Good.

Navin: In Malad West, there is another party also.

Mr.Ratho: But you can work together.

Vinay: To do this, do you need any support / input from BMC?

Pervez: We will show the proposal to BMC, Police for input.

Mr.Ratho: We don’t need any more expert inputs – the stakeholders can find the solution. You need to keep in mind pedestrian as well as traffic flows.

Pervez: We will do that.

Vinay: So of those of you present here, who will assist Pervez?

(YUVA, Atul, Sharit, Jon, Meher (will provide names of urban planners) volunteered.)

Atul: what is the time frame?

Mr.Ratho: 15-30 days

Jon: Some of the architecture colleges like K. Raheja and Rachana Sansad could also be asked to work on this. I will ask them.

Mr.Ratho: BMC will provide you with any help needed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Shenoy: Delhi has planned markets in each locality – Mumbai does not, hence people depend on stations – so BMC must look at converting unused available plots to markets.

Nayana: Not reserved plots!

Bhaskar: In Faridabad, there is a system that works well, where every week, the hawkers move from ward to ward and occupy an empty plot temporarily.

Shenoy: Nariman Point and Bandra Kurla need to have planned eating places – all future planning must take this into account, else hawkers will come to fill the gap.

Meher: The Crosroads 2 in nariman Point was supposed to have a hawking plaza on the ground floor – that was one of the conditions on which the mall was allowed.

Shenoy: Planning is essential – even in the mill lands, some portion should have been reserved for markets in that area.

Indrani: The very broad house gullies of Ballard Estate could be converted into hawking areas – most buildings are owned by the BPT.

Navin: we should also look at the Malad DP Plan that has 25 markets – in the context of providing a solution for the station.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Vora: I have 3 points:

1) The SC guidelines need to be more stringent – they have been diluted

2) Guidelines to be strictly followed – the 3 member committee has flouted some

3) Unauthorised hawkers are proliferating as there is a nexus between law enforcers and law breakers.

Mr.Ratho: lets analyse which roads suggested by the 3 member committee flout the guidelines.

Vora: BMC should use section 516 AAA where the encroacher, if caught, is put behind bars.

Mr.Ratho: The hawkers run away – how do we catch them?

Vora: The BMC should not come with their vans – that gives a prior warning to them to run away.

Mr.Ratho: BMC cannot arrest – the Police must do that

Vora: if the BMC writes to the Police, we will follow up to see that action is taken

The anti-encroachment acts / laws in MMC act and Police Act must be implemented.

How many Ward Officers have been penalised for not taking action?

Mr.Ratho: Citizens must complain.

Vora: We have complained – 10 letters. How do we complain against the 3 member committee:

Mr.Ratho: The Superintendent of Licenses is the PIO for the committee – you can through RTI find out about their reports, etc.

--------------------------------

Vinay: Thank you all for participating.

Mr. Ratho: Thank you all.

(So the meeting ended on a positive note to see what Pervez can demonstrate in the Malad W station area in the next 2-4 weeks. The meeting also highlighted the different perspectives and the need and value for collective dialogue.)