Case Summary:
Employment: Persons
with disabilities earning their living through street vending filed complaints
to courts regarding harassment by officials and inaction of allotment of kiosks
to applicants.
In
view of this affecting a large number of PwD, further status reports were
avoided and it was recommended that (1) PwD vendors who were vending before
13.09.13 should be left undisturbed (2) ones who had applied for licenses
before the said date but hadn’t gotten them due to delay should also be allowed
to vend on producing proof of application. Court further noted that some
clauses of the Delhi Street Vendors Act may need to be re-examined in light of
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Rules/Acts/Orders:
1. Delhi
Street Vendors Act
2. Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Order / Judgement:
In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities
National
Capital Territory of Delhi
25-
D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
[Vested with powers of Civil
Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016]
Case No. 4/1233/2016-Wel./CD/ 1212-1272 Dated:
27.07.2017
In
the matter of:
As
per the list enclosed ..... Complainants
Versus
The
Pr. Secretary, The
Commissioner,
Urban
Development Deptt. North
Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th
Level, C-Wing, 4th Floor, Dr. S.P.M.
Civic Centre,
Delhi
Secretariat, I.P. Estate, J.L.N.
Marg, New Delhi-110002
New
Delhi-110002 .....Respondent No.1 ......Respondent No.2
The
Commissioner, The Commissioner,
South
Delhi Municipal Corpn., East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th
Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre, 419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj
J.L.N.
Marg, New Delhi-110002 Industrial Area, Delhi-110096
.....Respondent No.3 ....Respondent No.4
The
Chairman,
New
Delhi Municipal Council,
Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg,
New
Delhi-110001 ... Respondent No.5
ORDER
A large number of persons with disabilities
individually as well as through their associations / societies who had been
either doing street vending or had applied to do street vending, filed their
representations before the Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities in
connection with the harassment by the enforcement officials or denial of
permission to earn their livelihoods through street vending. Their
complaints (55 complaints as per enclosed list) were taken up with the
concerned municipal authorities from time to time. Some of the
complainants filed multiple representations on the same or different issues at
different points of time. The then Commissioner for Persons
with Disabilities held a number of hearings in the said cases. While
the grievances of some of the complainants got redressed partially, those who
had applied for allotment of kiosks, street vending etc. are yet to get any
relief. Most of them often visit the office of State Commissioner for
Persons with Disabilities alleging harassment and inaction on their
applications for allotment of kiosks etc. seriously affecting their livelihoods
for a variety of reasons including delay in constitution
of Town Vending Committees (TVCs) / and their operationalization.
2. Keeping
in view the hardships being faced by persons with disabilities due to
forced eviction / destruction of their material / imposition of heavy fines on
seized material etc by enforcement agencies and inordinate delay in allotment
of kiosks, tahbazari etc. a
meeting with Urban Development Department, the three Municipal
Corporations of Delhi and New Delhi Municipal Council was convened on
26.06.2017 to review the status of constitution of TVCs by the concerned
authorities and to explore the possibility of saving the livelihoods of the
affected persons with disabilities. The representatives of the Principal
Secretary, U.D. Department, Commissioner South DMC, Commissioner North DMC and
Chairman NDMC attended the meeting. However, neither the
Commissioner EDMC / his representative attended the meeting nor did
anyone intimate the inability to attend the meeting despite the fact
that the notice of meeting clearly mentioned that a final view
would be taken in the matter and it would not be possible to have
further interactions. The heads of the organisations were requested
either to attend the meeting personally or depute an officer
of appropriate level who could make a decisive statement on behalf of the
organisation. I am therefore constrained to observe that the concerned officers
of EDMC have adopted a recalcitrant approach in finding a possible solution to
the cases and demonstrated indifference to the sufferings of a most
marginalized section of the society such as persons with
disabilities and hope that Commissioner EDMC will look into
the matter personally and impress upon the concerned officers to be more
sensitive towards the issues concerning persons with disabilities.
3. The
complainants can broadly be grouped in the following three categories:
I. Street
vendors who were doing street vending on or before 13.09.2013 and are aggrieved
by improper treatment and indignified handling by the enforcement officials of
the concerned corporation/ council and the police, imposition of heavy amount
of fine, delay in release of confiscated goods, etc;
II. Persons
with disabilities who were not allotted kiosks / licence etc. and not able
to do street vending due to various reasons including the apathy of the
concerned officials even though they had applied for licence much before
13.09.2013 and were also eligible for it;
III. Persons
with disabilities who have applied after 13.09.2013 or there about and need to
be considered by the respective Town Vending Committees.
4. During
the meeting, the participating representatives pointed out that some of the
vendors with disability were not genuine and also indulge in gross violation of
the laws, rules, etc. After an extensive discussion, the participating
representatives proposed that the list of the complainants may be provided to
them which they would examine and then submit the status of each complainant by
a fixed date where after the decision may be taken.
5. Upon
perusal of the record, it is seen that the complaints under consideration had
been taken up with the concerned Municipalities already and the issues are as
described above. The concerned Municipalities have given their respective
versions in some cases from time to time which revolve around constitution of
the Town Vending Committees and the matter being subjudice before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi. In view of the fact that the representations
concern the livelihoods of a large number of persons with disabilities who face
adverse situations on day-to- day basis and that the issue of constitution of
the Town Vending Committees is before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi who are
seized of the issues connected therewith, it will be expedient to dispose of
the complaints rather than wait for another round of status reports by the
concerned authorities, which are not likely to be different from the ones so
far submitted. Accordingly, the following is recommended:
i. The
persons with disabilities who were vending as on 13.09.2013, should not be
disturbed and be allowed to earn their livelihood by selling various articles.
ii. Persons
with disabilities who fulfilled eligibility conditions and had applied for
vending licence, allotment of kiosks etc. before 13.09.2013 but were not issued
the licence while those who applied after them, were given the licence, should
not be denied vending right on the ground that their names do not exist in the
list of registered vendors as they would have been covered under the ‘existing
vendors’ as on 13.09.2013 had their applications been processed in time by the
concerned Municipal authorities. Such vendors should however produce the proof
of having applied for the vending licence, allotment of
kiosks, etc.
iii. The
concerned functionaries of the Municipalities/ Cantonment
Board should be properly and adequately sensitised to deal with
persons with disabilities with dignity, particularly while seizing and
releasing their goods (perishable/ non-perishable) which should be released
within the prescribed time limit and be considerate in levying
fines.
6. It is also relevant to point out that some
clauses of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood & Regularisation
of Street Vending) Rules 2016, may need a relook in light of the coming in to
force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)
w.e.f. 19.04.2017 and appreciation of certain issues specific to
persons with disabilities.
7. Recommendations in respect of a few of such
Clauses/ issues are as under:-
i. Clause 1.1.9 should
provide for some additional method for acknowledgement of the vendor requiring them
to sign and put th umb impression as some persons with disabilities may not
have thumb or Arms.
ii. Where
ever the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 occurs in the Rules
/ scheme, it should be replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act,2016.
iii. Section
37 of the RPwD Act provides for reservation of 5% in all poverty alleviation
and various development schemes with priority to women with bench mark
disabilities. Clauses 3.3.4 should mention 5% instead of 3% for persons with
disabilities. New Delhi Municipal Council in their letter no. 983/DIR(Enf)/2015
dated 29.06.2015 had informed Urban Development that the quota
for persons with disabilities was to be raised from 5% to 10% in compliance of
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgement dated 08.10.2010 in the matter of Gainda Ram
Vs MCD in Writ Petition (C) 1699/1987. This may be examined and the necessary
provision may suitably be incorporated, where required.
iv. Clause
6.2.1 (ii), provides for preference to widows. Widows with disabilities should
be given higher priority amongst the widows. This may suitably be incorporated.
v. Persons
with bench mark disabilities who need high support like those with autism,
intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, multiple disabilities etc. may require
assistance to carry out the vending activities. In such cases
support/assistance by family members/legal guardian may also be
considered with adequate safeguards.
vi. Urban
Development should consult Social Welfare Department, GNCT of Delhi
being the nodal Department for persons with disabilities
before finalising the Rules and the Scheme.
8. The
cases as indicated in the list are disposed of with the above observations on
the limited issues.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day
of July,2017.
(T.D. Dhariyal )
Encl:
As above. State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Copy
for information to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, GLNS Complex,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi w.r.t. para 6 of the Order.
CATEGORY
WISE LIST OF CASES
|
S.NO.
|
FILE NO.
|
NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT
|
CATEGORY
|
|
1
|
4/1305/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. NAMDEV PANDIT V/S POLICE
|
I
|
|
2
|
4/1327/2016-WEL/CD
|
MS. SABHANA V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
3
|
4/1367/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. KALICHARAN V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
4
|
4/1382/2016-WEL/CD
|
MS. SABHANA V/S NDMC,POLICE
|
I
|
|
5
|
4/1393/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. VIJAY KR. V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
6
|
4/1602/2017-WEL/CD
|
SH. RAM SHABA V/S POLICE
|
I
|
|
7
|
4/1601/2017-WEL/CD
|
SH. NISATH JAN SEVA TRUST V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
8
|
4/1396/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. VIJAY KUMAR V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
9
|
4/592/2014-WEL/CD
|
SH. VIJAY KUMAR V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
10
|
4/782/2014-WEL/CD
|
SH. KISHAN SINGH V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
11
|
4/1142/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. RUBY KUMARI MISHRA V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
12
|
4/1421/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. VIJAY KUMAR V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
13
|
4/1442/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. VIJAY KUMAR V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
14
|
4/1437/2016-WEL/CD
|
MS. MATHURA BAI & ANR.V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
15
|
4/988/2015-WEL/CD
|
MS. MATHURA BAI V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
16
|
4/871/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. PRITAM SINGH V/S NDMC
|
I
|
|
17
|
4/1390/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. DHARMENDRA KUMAR PANDEY V/S
NDMC
|
I
|
|
18
|
4/1257/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH.NARESH PAHARIA V/S SDMC
|
I
|
|
19
|
4/1082/2015-WEL/CD
|
MOHD MUNNA KHAN V/S SDMC
|
I
|
|
20
|
4/786/2014-WEL/CD
|
SH. RAMKISHAN SAHU VS SDMC & DELHI POLICE
|
I
|
|
21
|
1(427)/Grv./13-14/CD
|
SH. RAMKISHAN SAHU VS DDA & POLICE
|
I
|
|
22
|
4/1293/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. VIJAY KUMAR V/S NDMC
|
II
|
|
23
|
4/1448/2016-WEL/CD
|
MISS INDERJEET KAUR V/S LNJP HOSPITAL
|
II
|
|
24
|
4/1568/2017-WEL/CD
|
SH. AVINASH SINGH V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
25
|
4/1452/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. RAJ KUMAR V/S EDMC
|
II
|
|
26
|
4/1141/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. DHARMENDRA KUMAR PANDEY V/S
NDMC
|
II
|
|
27
|
4/1404/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. ARUN KUMAR THAKUR V/S NDMC
|
II
|
|
28
|
4/1397/2016-WEL/CD
|
MS. LAXMI V/S NDMC
|
II
|
|
29
|
4/1414/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. DULARE LAL & SONS V/S NDMC
|
II
|
|
30
|
4/900/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. AMIT KUMAR V/S NDMC
|
II
|
|
31
|
4/962/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. BANKEY LAL V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
32
|
4/1370/2016-WEL/CD
|
MOHD. NAWAB ALI V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
33
|
4/1156/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. DASRATH THAKUR V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
34
|
4/1465/2016-WEL/CD
|
MS. DHAPA DEVI V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
35
|
4/1212/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. DEEPAK KUMAR V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
36
|
4/1381/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH.SUNIT KUMAR V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
37
|
4/804/2014-WEL/CD
|
SH. DHAPA DEVI V/S NDMC
|
II
|
|
38
|
4/1027/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. VIJENDER KUMAR V/S NDMC
|
II
|
|
39
|
4/690/2014-WEL/CD
|
SH. DEVENDER SINGH ANAND V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
40
|
F.1/270/GRV/11-12/CD
|
SH. DEVENDER SINGH V/S SDMC
|
II
|
|
41
|
4/1309/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. BANKEY LAL PRASAD V/S NDMC
|
III
|
|
42
|
4/1315/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. SHYAM SARAN V/S NDMC
|
III
|
|
43
|
4/1317/2016-WEL/CD
|
MS. MADHU DEVI V/S NDMC
|
III
|
|
44
|
4/1134/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. RAKESH S/O SH.HARI LAL V/S NDMC
|
III
|
|
45
|
4/1109/2015-WEL/CD
|
SH. BIRENDER V/S SDMC
|
III
|
|
46
|
4/1144/2015-WEL/CD
|
MOHD. GULFAM ALI V/S SDMC
|
III
|
|
47
|
4/1146/2015-WEL/CD
|
MS. RINKI KUMARI V/S SDMC
|
III
|
|
48
|
4/1468/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. RAM BABU YADAV V/S SDMC
|
III
|
|
49
|
4/1343/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. RAM KR. KUSHWAHA V/S NDMC
|
III
|
|
50
|
4/1508/2017-WEL/CD
|
SH. AJAY SINGH V/S SDMC
|
III
|
|
51
|
4/1545/2017-WEL/CD
|
SH. VINOK KUMAR V/S EDMC,POLICE
|
III
|
|
52
|
4/1573/2017-WEL/CD
|
SH. RAJESH KUMAR V/S EDMC
|
III
|
|
53
|
4/1543/2017-WEL/CD
|
SH. RAVI KUMAR V/S SDMC
|
III
|
|
54
|
4/1482/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. SHANKER V/S NDMC
|
III
|
|
55
|
4/1417/2016-WEL/CD
|
SH. JITENDER KUMAR V/S NORTH MCD
|
III
|
REFERENCE:
I.
Street
vendors who were doing street vending on or before 13.09.2013 and are aggrieved
by improper treatment and indignified handling by the enforcement officials of
the concerned corporation/ council and the police, imposition of heavy amount
of fine, delay in release of confiscated goods, etc;
II.
Persons
with disabilities who were not allotted
kiosks / licence etc. and not able to do street vending due to various reasons
including the apathy of the concerned officials even though they had applied
for licence much before 13.09.2013 and were also eligible for it;
III.
Persons
with disabilities who have applied after 13.09.2013 or there about and need to
be considered by the respective Town Vending Committees.
No comments:
Post a Comment