Hawkers encroach upon the fundamental rights of shopkeepers who are carrying their business from commercial establishments and also create security problem for the public, a Delhi court has said.
Senior Civil Judge Gaurav Rao also said shopkeepers pay huge rents, taxes and make investments for carrying on their business while hawkers merely sit in front of the shops and start doing their business without paying anything or having to buy a piece of land.
“It is also very well known that hawking business at times causes law and order problem on account of quarrel between hawkers and shopkeepers in front of whose shops the hawkers put up their stalls/business.
“Hawkers at times encroach upon the fundamental rights of the shopkeepers who are carrying on their business from commercial establishments/ shops, are paying huge rents, taxes and have made huge investments as against the hawkers/ squatters who merely sit in front of their shops and start doing their business without paying any rent, taxes and without having to spent on buying the piece of land from which they operate/carry on their business,” the court said.
It also said that at times hawking results in injustice to shopkeepers and is against the principle of fair play.
“Hawking results in inconvenience to the public at large as well as proves dangerous to the safety/security of the public,” the magistrate said.
The court’s observations came while deciding a suit against a hawker who sought direction to restrain South Delhi Municipal Corporation and SHO of Nehru Place Police Station from evicting from a shop in Nehru Place market.
He said he was selling mobile accessories there since 2005 and has never caused hindrance to anybody including other shop owners.
The municipal corporation said in its reply that plaintiff was an encroacher and cannot claim a right on the government land and the LG had in 2009 declared Nehru Place as “No hawking zone” so his suit is liable to be dismissed.
The court, while dismissing the hawker’s suit, said the kind of hawking he wanted was in fact a permission to put a permanent structure or to have a permanent place of business on a government land which cannot be permitted.
“Therefore, in the case at hand the plaintiff has no right whatsoever to carry on the business from the suit property. Accordingly, he is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for,” the court said.
(Source : PTI)