Not only there are multiple stakeholders that influence street vending, but there are divisions of interest among each category as well. The Municipal Corporation desires to free the road space for biking and walking, as well as protect the livelihoods. Citizens also have different tolerance for vending activity as buyers and as residents of societies outside or near which vending occurs. Even vendors are divided despite many of them being members of associations. Extortion of money and exploitation in other forms for a better vending spot and similar privileges are common. “… I have no business not involving [the other stakeholders]. There is a committee in which they are also a party. But, ‘vendors’ means who? I am one officer and you are able to counter me. There are n vendors and they also fight among themselves. They can be the worst exploiters of each other. We make better decisions for them than they make for themselves, sometimes,” says the commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. An observer of Urban Street Vending will be able to see a grain of truth in this statement.

In the face of such split multiplicity of stakeholders, and the fact that the guidelines for vending might not be declared anytime soon, the Municipal Commissioner is responsible for effective management of street vending in the city. If enforcement is not an effective approach, then the need for participative approach to management of street vending is indicated. The question is, which of the issues of street vending should be managed collaboratively, and which not? If the street vending committee is the body that enables stakeholder participation, what strategies can help leverage the functioning of the committee in a win-win fashion?

Ahmedabad provides an interesting example of SV with forty years of legal struggle that continues sporadically even today, while the authorities and the representatives of the vendors also work together on a number of issues. The city is among the first ones to formally decide to implement the "Priya Darshini Indira Rojgar Yojana" as per the guidelines of the National Street Vendor Policy 2004, and had a street vending management scheme in place in 2010 – way before the promulgation of the Act. The city has also completed the first survey of street vendors operating in the city in 2010-11 and has formulated the Town Vending Committee (TVC) for management of SV in the city. The objectives of the city’s street vending scheme are multifold, as detailed in the coming section.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS:

The section 2.1(l) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2013 (the Act) defines “street vendor” as a person engaged in vending of articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise of everyday use or offering services to the general public, in a street, lane, side walk, 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 and includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other synonymous terms which may be local or region specific; and the words “street vending” with their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly.

Section 2.1(k) of the Act defines “stationary vendors” means street vendors who carry out vending activities on regular basis at a specific location.

Section 2.1(n) of the Act defines “vending zone” as an area or a place or a location designated as such by the local authority on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, for the specific use by street vendors for street vending and includes footpath, side walk, pavement, embankment, portions of a street, waiting area for public or any such place considered suitable for vending activities and providing services to the general public.

Annexure-1 summarizes the major provisions of the Act along with the views of major stakeholders on the status of each.

SV: a past indented with litigation at National level

The National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI) was formed in 1998 for effective representation of USVs at the highest level against large-scale evictions. Several of these conflicts reached the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court itself has ruled in a manner that highlights the need for balancing the seemingly contradictory interests of street vendors as well as the local authorities. For example, in the Sodhan Singh versus NDMC 1989 case-1³:

“The right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19(1)g of the Constitution, on street pavements, if properly regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and no other use.”

At the same time, in its more recent ruling (Sudhir Madan and others versus MCD and others: 2006), it also stated that⁴: “ The right to use the pathway, footpath etc. is that of the citizens. No hawker can claim a right to defeat the rights of other citizens… the fundamental rights of the citizens cannot be put in jeopardy by permitting hawkers and squatters to block roads. Consistent with the rights of citizens, if it is possible to provide any space to hawkers, squatters etc., authority will have to consider on what principles hawking and no hawking zone have to be carved out. It will also have to consider what nature of goods can be sold by hawkers, squatters, etc. so that cleanliness is maintained and at the same time free flow of traffic and movement of pedestrians is not obstructed.”

Before setting out to balance the interests of the vendors, public and authorities; there is a need for realistic estimates of the number of vendors operating in the city and what is the best way to regulate them given the service they provide to the public. However, much of the activities of street vendors are outside the legal realm (Manushi Trust, 2006).

Table-1: Street vendor population and licenses in different cities of India

City	Estimated number of street vendors	Licenses granted
Delhi	300,000	3,000
Mumbai	400,000	15,000
Patna	80,000	2,000
Ahmedabad (2010-11)	City has an online database and geo-location of nearly 67,000 USVs⁵ identified in a biometric survey against an estimate of 85,000 USVs ⁶

Source: Mahadevia, 2012

This illegal status makes vendors vulnerable to bribes, beatings, arrests and extortion by mafias. On an average, they earn approximately Rs. 6,000 per month, against which up to a third may be paid out by way of a bribe⁷. By estimates made by Manushi Trust (2006), the total all-India turnover of business by street vendors is at least Rs. 86 Thousand crores - in Delhi alone, their turnover is over 3,000 crore. So, on one hand protecting the livelihoods of the street vendors is a powerful tool of poverty alleviation in a dignified manner while contributing to the GDP of the country. At the same time, it is also important to maintain comfort of users of roads so as not to encroach and congest the roads, create unhygienic and dirty spaces or challenge the law and order.

SV in Ahmedabad⁸ has been not much different from the rest of the country in terms of contentious past:

1. 1970s: AMC faced a law suit in High Court by SEWA for trading spaces and licenses for the vendors at Manek Chowk. AMC was mandated to issue licenses for public spaces to be used for hawking, but it had not issued the licenses and had prosecuted USVs under the s.231 of the BPMC Act, which authorizes the removal of any article hawked, disposed or exposed for sale, without notice. Since vending was considered illegal without licenses, AMC collected fines amounting to Rs.12.50 per hawker per week for six years. City Police fined them separately. There was also the daily bribe of Rs.1-2 paid to the traffic police, and it is reported that those who refused to pay were issued summons for traffic offences. SEWA request for declaring Manek Chowk as pedestrian zone was declined, but the court granted the request to issue licenses for the USVs, who were granted space in Manek Chowk as they had been doing business there for many generations.

2. 1987-1990: The Supreme court order did not produce much action, so SEWA filed Special Civil Application (SCA) in the name of 281 USVs in the old application of the Manek Chowk vendor and three more. The submission was that that despite the Supreme Court decision, the harassment, illegal fines and physical abuse of the vendors continued. SEWA also submitted several other petitions covering more areas, namely Danapith, Girdharnagar, Shardaben Hospital, Meghaninagar and Vitthal Nagar.

3. 2006 onwards: In August 2006, vendors in the Hatkeshwar area were evicted by AMC officers. Similar evictions occurred in other areas such as Manek Chowk, Girdharnagar, Jamalpur, and Mansi Complex, even though in 1992 the Manek Chowk vendors had obtained a restraining order from the Gujarat High Court. Thus in September 2006, SEWA filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court of Gujarat on behalf of its members. This was an important event leading to drafting of the bill concerning SV in India.

SV in Ahmedabad

The density of street venders in Ahmedabad is almost 1.5%, lesser than the national estimate of 2.5%. For the aggregate population of 6.5 million spread over the area of 466 square kilometers, the city of Ahmedabad has an estimated vendor population of 85 to 100 thousand⁹ as against formal count of 66,593 that emerged in the 2010-11 survey conducted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC).

Based on these estimates, street vendors constitute about 1.5% of the city population, spread with the density of about 183 to 214 per square kilometer¹⁰. There are an estimated 182 street vending markets, 20 of which pose a significant management challenge with distinct context surrounding each of these markets¹¹.

AMC announced its Street Vending Scheme 2010 (the Scheme) in response to the oral order of the Gujarat High Court consequent to the writ petition made by SEWA. The scheme provides for the governing and implementation of SV in Ahmedabad through the Town Vending Committee and its monitoring through the Municipal Standing Committee. The objectives of the Scheme are:

1. Protect the livelihood of the USVs

2. Help uplift USVs

3. Add dynamism to the urban economy

4. Ensure smooth movement of vehicles on roads and people on foot-paths

5. Maintain comfort, health and hygiene of the citizens

6. Prevent congestion of roads/streets/public places

The Scheme is compliant with the provisions and requirements of the NUSVP 2009. For example, a fully empowered Town Vending Committee (TVC) is constituted. That means that all functions that the NPUSV (2009) attributes to the TVC can be performed by the TVC of Ahmedabad, and it has all the necessary powers for doing the same. Nearly 40% of its members represent the USVs as mandated by the law, a third of whom are women. Three representatives of community-based organizations and one member from an NGO are also on the committee. Over and above the power to function, the TVC of Ahmedabad can also make and amend rules necessary for functioning effectively. The committee is entrusted with the responsibility to create structural facilities and their maintenance, as also create a mechanism for controlling the weekly, festival- and night- bazaars.

A survey conducted by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) in 2010-11 identifies stationary venders at more than 80% of the total. Hence, where these venders would be placed and how they would conduct vending are very important issues:

Source: Internal documents, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

Figure-1: Type of Street Venders in Ahmedabad (based on survey of 2010-11).

Source: Internal documents, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

Figure-2: Zone-wise number of Street Venders in Ahmedabad (based on survey of 2010-11).

Stakeholders of SV in Ahmedabad

The contentious history, evolution of events leading up to formulation of policy, law and schemes, and upcoming State guidelines on the matter encourage consideration of issues that obstruct the smooth and effective development of regulatory framework as well as regulated practice of SV without jeopardizing the interests and livelihood of the USV, as suggested by the objectives. Since these objectives convey balancing of interests, it is pertinent to explore the position of various stakeholders involved. They are:

1. Street Venders

2. Street vender associations such as NASVI, Interest Groups, Self Help Groups

3. Residents of localities where USV occurs, drivers of vehicles, walkers on foot path

4. ‘Authorities’:

a. Municipal Corporation:

i. Health/Sanitation department

ii. Estate department

b. State Government

c. Police

iii. City Police

iv.Traffic Police

d. Mobile and other Courts

Issues perceived by the Corporation¹²

Whether it is because of the explicit announcement by the policy and the law, or a genuine belief, the officials at AMC described SV in the light of livelihood protection and social integration, rather than a congestion problem. As per AMC, the role of the local authority encompasses the following:

· Implementing the Scheme despite the space constraint

· Photo Census of USVs

· Establish registration system for USVs

· Registration of USVs

· Issue identity cards

· Control the vendors density in each ward

· Monitoring the vending activities

· Provide the civic facility

· Provide infrastructure facilities

According to the Estate Manager at AMC, who is directly responsible for managing street vending in the city, several cities in India have taken initiatives towards managing SV effectively, and cities can learn from each other. For example, Delhi has provided for mobile courts dedicated to resolving SV issues. Because USVs change their locations and the dynamic nature of congestion, grievances arise on both the sides – venders as well as authorities. Mobile SV-focused courts bring out the resolution faster.

The greatest challenge as perceived by the Estate Manager is that the space allocable for street vending is scarce. Development of these spaces, infrastructure facilities and civic amenities would place major claim over efforts and funds. The venders are unwilling to move from existing location. These venders lack education and awareness, as does the public. This creates the health and hygiene challenge.

In the meanwhile, traffic on the roads nearby has increased. The following graph gives an idea of the density of venders per kilometer:

Figure-3: [Selective] Area-wise density of

Street Venders in Ahmedabad (2010-11).

Source: Internal Documents, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (based on survey of 2010-11).

Issues raised by the vendors in Ahmedabad

However, there may never be sufficient space for SV not just in Ahmedabad but any large city. So would be the case with other constraints, such as infrastructure, resources. The public awareness may not be present by default, and more efforts would be required. What AMC officials suggest may not be the problems that should stop management of SV, but may be considered as opportunities for more creative management of SV adapted to the local needs, constraints and challenges.

During interviews, focus groups and field visits, the USVs vocalized the issues that challenge the same, segregated as follows:

(A) Town Vending Committee (TVC):

The TVC is formed in accordance with the NPUSV as well as the Scheme adopted by the city. However, those USV members who are nominated on the TVC should be able to represent the collectivity effectively. In a city as large as Ahmedabad, there is a need for ward level vending committees because there are specific issues related to SV in particular wards of the city. At present, the TVC is overloaded with issues, and the USVs feel that their issues receive less than adequate attention or discussion. Further, the TVC meetings are needed regularly and more often for effectively managing the vending.

(B) Zoning and Relocating:

In Ahmedabad, zoning has been accepted in line with the street vending policy and the Act. However, the details of areas within zones and arrangement for street vending remains to be worked out. So far, the city has identified Model Roads, on which no vending is allowed, and the current zoning scheme interferes with the naturally evolving SV markets. Especially, out of approximately 174 natural markets in the city, about 20-25 (ST bus stop, Saraspur, Vitthal Nagar) markets are problematic. The USVs are often evicted sporadically without providing alternative market place, though the authorities usually provide or suggest an alternative place. Often that place does not have the locational advantage. The venders who do move to other location lose their business because ‘markets evolve where there is business – business won’t always thrive wherever you make a market’, especially because the venders sell products that the passers-by would like to buy on their way or at a specific location: mainly food, fruits and vegetables. If a place is cleared of venders, it is soon occupied by some other venders because of the demand at that location, for example tea and snack stalls near large office complex and flowers near temples, fruits near the hospital. On the other hand, forceful eviction and relocation of USVs do not solve the problem of congestion because (1) the demand of parking space and traffic on the roads are on constant rise (2) Foot-paths are otherwise obstructed by electricity poles, trees, and similar structures due to which pedestrians use them little, hence the space attracts venders.

Source: Internal documents, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

Figure-4: Types of products sold by Street Venders in Ahmedabad.

Without optimization among a number of variables, it seems impossible to cater to diverse needs. When the AMC recognizes only a few from among a large group of USVs occupying a space creates discord among the community and shapes a view that ‘the authorities’ are unfair and selective. In some places (e.g. Hatkeshwar circle) venders were moved for creating space for parking. However, it did not always solve the congestion problem and in addition, people who were compliant and shifted to suggested place, lost their business while those who did not comply immediately and continued in their old place maintained their earning (e.g. Mansi circle). Residents of the societies along the inner roads disapprove of perennial vending even if they may rent their space for seasonal vending of their own accord (e.g. Ganesh idols ahead of Ganesh Utsav).

(C) ID, Licenses and Fee:

In line with the USV policy and the Scheme, the city has declared the zones where respectively there is no vending, restricted vending and permitted vending. The authorities may confiscate the implements and objects (not the perishable goods) of the vender who does not comply with the restrictions. Venders require a license for legal vending. Many venders prefer paying the corporators for special intervention for release of confiscated objects rather than obtaining hawker’s license, because a hawker cannot stand or sit at a place for vending, they must be on the move. AMC, however, does not give new licenses to sell at a designated spot (pitch license. If the pitch licenses are given at a fee for regulated and comfortable vending, the venders would be willing to pay officially, rather than unofficially.

(D) Planning:

The vendors feel that SV is being subjected to too much standardization, due to which the specific vending context is ignored in a large city such as Ahmedabad. The standardized zoning accompanied by alternative space allocation creates issues that lead to litigation and conflict. The court verdicts have been favorable to venders as well as the corporation in different cases. However, Planning at the city level is still unilateral and sometimes at short notice. At the moment, mechanism for estimating demand for various products that are sold in different street vending areas does not appear systematic. At least a part of planning can be carried out consultatively so as to reduce litigation, conflict and chaos. There is a feeling that despite the history of forty years of struggle, the issue of vending has not become an integral part of city development and planning.

(E) Designing:

The corporation usually constructs platforms for SVs to sit on for vending. The designing of the vending space and platforms is often not appropriate. In a given area, the platforms have uniform dimensions. Some of these platforms are congested, while some others are inadequately used either because they are located at a spot where they do not attract footfall, or because the venders sell only small quantity of goods. Additionally, many of these platforms are poorly designed and do not help improve the issue of congestion. In different areas of the city, the height of the platforms varies. Some are so high that climbing onto them with a load of goods or seeing the full display of their goods is not easy. Cleanliness around the vending space is inadequate, and it is observed that the paid municipal cleaner, who also collects money from the venders does not maintain cleanliness. The arrangement of bins is not effective to maintain cleanliness around the venders, who sell, say cauliflower or cabbage. Facilities such as sanitation and water are missing or not easily accessible from these sites.

(F) Regulating:

At the moment there are so many ‘authorities’ doing their own part of regulating, that unification among them and single point regulation is felt as desirable by the venders. Sometimes, what seems at the first glance to be unregulated venders encroaching upon public space is because there are vehicles parked illegally, or the wares of the shops placed out behind the venders. The vending space is often characterized by the presence of anti-social elements who extract their own share from the venders under the pretext of protecting them from the police. These ‘local mafia’, as they are often called, make more venders to sit than permitted by the authorities.

While the regulation is tough with respect to vending location, the maintenance and upkeep of the vending space, including cleanliness, security and order is inadequate. Sometimes the local authorities, mostly police, fine and detain the venders in order to meet their targets. Such practices subject venders to fear and unpredictability, because they may be locked up without any violation of law. AMC has initiated the process of making a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a trust created for local venders specific to a location (Jamalpur). Making of that MOU is not complete after lapse of long time. Such processing time for vending related matters is often delayed.

Vending related paper-work takes inordinate time in its movement across departments. Often there are unclear or missing notations by officers from the forwarding departments, so the next department does not know clearly as to what should be done.

AMC is awaiting guidelines from the State government for implementing the street vending law. Incidentally, the State is developing these guidelines on its own with the help of consultants and the venders or AMC officials have not been approached as yet for their views.

(G) Attitude:

Venders’ perception is that the authorities approach the issue of SV as a nuisance, an illegal activity, an insignificant and/or unsolvable problem. Venders perceive that the authorities believe that there are too many of them, there is no space for them in the city. While it might actually appear that way, it is a combined challenge to planning, designing and managing skills. Rather than that, it is perceived that the authorities treat USVs as an avenue for informal income. Compassion, humanitarianism, fairness and participation are missing. In several cases when available and requested plots are not allocated to venders because of their commercial value or use for more powerful users, such as car owners; such perceptions are strengthened.

Outcomes:

With the help of SEWA and similar associations of venders, the AMC so far has taken the following actions:

1. Seven plots have been identified in the town planning scheme for vending:

Town planning scheme name	No. of plots	Plot Area (Sq.mt.)
76 Hathijan	1	7997
79 Vatva	2	1152
88 Vatva	2	2189
91 Vizol	1	884
99 Chiloda - naroda	1	708

Source: AMC internal document (undated)

2. The historical Gujari Bazar, in which articles of house hold need, furniture, books, historical articles, etc. are sold by around 1200 venders, is relocated because of Sabarmati River Front Development project. Sabarmati River Front Development Limited (SRFDL) has decided to relocate the vendors between Ellisbridge to Sardar Bridge.

3. Out of 726 Vendors of Jamalpur Vegetable Market, 300 Vendors have been shifted at a space available under the road over bridge and 426 Vendor have been shifted to the open plot near by the Flower Market. This activity is being be monitored by SEWA.

4. Identity cards have been issued to 937 vendors identified on the Model Roads, and they have been shifted to demarcated space in Municipal plots nearby or off the roads.

5. AMC has started to identify the vendors on BRTS route (length 65 Kilometres) and on Model road (length 37.40 Kilometres) in second phase and the alternative space will be given them.

6. AMC has constructed 134 thadas (platforms) for vendors of Gomtipur darwaja and TVC has resolved to allot the same.

7. Road and Building committee has resolved to construct 400 thadas in four zones for vendors of nearby area.

Remaining challenges and the way ahead:

The study reveals that SV is a dynamic phenomenon. The aspiring venders, their locations, the tolerance for congestions and the expectations about good SV practices keep changing, some on day-to-day basis. Multiple parties are involved – both affecting and getting affected – over issues that may be routine as well as non-routine. Centralized management of dynamic and complex issues, by definition, fails or limits effectiveness. Yet, there is a need for clear allocation of roles and responsibilities.

Interestingly, during the focus group, venders said that because the AMC has formal authority, they would be able to bring greater coherence among diverse interests and expectations of the stakeholders involved. Here is the summary of issues where they believe consultation before deciding would help:

Issues that venders believe AMC may manage unilaterally

Issues that venders believe AMC may finalize after consulting with other parties

· Opposition from residents near the areas designated for SV

· Coordination with City Police

· Security of the venders and vending place

· Zoning

· Licenses, fees

· Draws and numbering

· Design of the platforms (thadas) where venders would sit (consult venders, their associations, academicians from institutes such as NID, IIM, CEPT)

· Survey of venders

· Arranging the venders

· Finalization of plots allocated to USVs

· Checking of the venders selected for numbering after draws should be performed along with venders’ associations

These expectations seem to be modest and focused mainly on sharing of information and opinions with and from the people whom decisions on SV are going to affect. Involvement of experts in planning, design and management may improve the quality of solution, and it may not be limited to the Gujari Bazar only, which received a little extra attention because of the river-front project.

Much of the actual interaction between the authorities, USVs and their representative organizations continues to be in and out of the courts of law – not the ideal location for collaborative management. The meetings of the TVC are present as a tool, but currently it does not seem to be used to its optimal potential. Is the interaction at present –in whatever form- fruitful to the stakeholders and the city? Can the outcomes in the matter of SV be improved further (Annexure-1)?

Questions such as these evoke thinking about the disagreement over various issues, the differing perceptions about the other party in each party’s mind, time taken for resolving issues and moving towards prevention of at least preventable ones are some of the items that can benefit from improvement. How is that improvement to be realized? SV in Ahmedabad is an open case.

ENDNOTES:

1. Mahadevia, D., Vyas, S., Brown, A., and Lyons, M., 2012. Law, Rights and Regulation for Street Vending in Globalizing Ahmedabad. Working Paper-1: Law, Rights and Regulation in the Informal Economy. ECRC-DFID Research Project, Cardiff University, London South Bank University, CEPT University

2. The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad – in an interview

3. Special leave petitions and writ petitions, first filed in 1988, ruled by the bench of judges, L.M. Sharma, E.S. Venkataramiah, (CJ), S. Natrajan, , N.D. Ojha, and Kuldip Singh; decided on 30/08/1989, accessed from http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=7835

4. Writ Petition (civil) 1699 of 1987 Ruled by the bench of judges, B.P. Singh and Harjit Singh Bedi, decided on 17/05/2007, accessed from http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=29076

5. Interview data

6. Estimated by SEWA

7. Manushi Trust, 2006: Example of Anil Kumar and his brother, who sell channa paranthas at Rs.5 per plate in a West Delhi colony

8. Mahadevia, D., Vyas, S., Brown, A., and Lyons, M., 2012. Law, Rights and Regulation for Street Vending in Globalizing Ahmedabad. Working Paper-1: Law, Rights and Regulation in the Informal Economy. ECRC-DFID Research Project, Cardiff University, London South Bank University, CEPT University Interview data

9. Ministry of urban development, Gujarat.

10. Interview data

11. Internal documents, AMC

Received on 25.08.2015 Modified on 17.09.2015

Asian J. Management; 6(4): Oct. -Dec., 2015 page 283-290

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2015.00041.4