Annexure – 1

Basic Flaws in the MCD Tehbazari Scheme adopted by the MCD

1. Arbitrary Numbers: The National Policy for Street Vendors mentions that 2.5% of a city’s population is engaged in vending which means the number of vendors keep increasing with population increase. But the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has announced that it will issue 300,000 licences and invited applications accordingly. How has the MCD arrived at the figure of 3 lakhs? Does it have any realistic count of the vendors in the city? What if the numbers of vendors in Delhi is actually more? Who and how are excess to be eliminated?
2. Process of Selection: If the MCD receives applications far in excess of the 3-lakh vending licenses announced, which is bound to happen, what will be the process of selection and elimination? What procedures will the MCD apply for deciding who is a genuine vendor and who is not, especially if all have the required documents?
3. Danger of Benami Applications Crowding Out Genuine Vendors: At the time of applications invited under the Gainda Ram Scheme in 1993, 85000 persons applied in MCD area and 10,000 in NDMC area. Only 2300 tehbazaris were cleared in MCD area and about 1000 for NDMC area. Of this 578 cases are still waiting allotment, nearly 15 years after the process was set in motion. In the last three decades the MCD & NDMC together have bestowed less than 3000 tehbazaris. How will the MCD process and weed out lakhs of genuine from benami applications that are likely to flood the MCD office? What kind of time frame has it set and what will be the process for doing so? What is the systemic guarantee that earlier frauds will not be repeated?
4. Fate of Earlier Applications: The applications for mobile vending were invited in the year 2001. What is the fate of those applications? What is the guarantee that the new applications will not meet with a similar fate?
5. Inadequate Allocation of Space: You have announced that the MCD will issue 300,000 tehbazaris but the space earmarked for hawking zones as per the list submitted to the Supreme Court not likely to accommodate more than 20,000 to 30,000 vendors. Where do you intend to accommodate the rest?
6. Principle of Natural Markets: The National Policy requires that hawing zones be created around the "natural markets" where vendors are currently located. The list of hawking zones to the Supreme Court does not abide by this basic requirement. Through what process were these hawking zones selected?
7. Footpath Space Criteria: The MCD has submitted to the Supreme Court that vending sites shall be leaving 5 ft. space on footpath from the edge of the road for use of pedestrians. Except in Lutyens Delhi, there are hardly any footpaths in MCD areas. When and where are these footpaths being constructed? What if they never get constructed? Does it mean vendors will be removed from all such areas where there are no footpaths or where footpaths are not wide enough to leave five feet space after accommodating vendors?
8. Ban on Street Foods: The MCD worked hard to get street foods banned through the Supreme Court. This goes against one of the basic tenets of National Policy, which treats street foods as an essential survival need of the urban poor and even for sections of the working middle class. The FAO has a mandate to promote safe and nutritional street foods as part of its strategy of improving the nutritional status of urban poor. Freshly cooked street foods are much safer than pre cooked foods. Yet the MCD went out of its way to get street foods banned. The ban has not made street foods disappear. It has only escalated bribe rates. MCD needs to reconsider this stance.
9. Time Controls on Vending: The MCD had submitted that it would impose time controls on street vending. This too goes against the National Policy and will only lead to more harassment and corruption.
10. Proof of Vending: By requiring vendors to furnish "festival receipt, token, challan, traffic police challan or certificate of a registered RWA or Bazar Committees or NGO in order to be eligible, the MCD is facilitating the growth of a whole industry of bogus challans as happened during the Gainda Ram Scheme. Most RWAs are hostile to vendors even though they use their services. Bazaar Committees see them as competitors who should be removed. The absurdity of expecting police and municipal challans and receipts of punitive fines as proof of eligibility becomes obvious if one considers the fact that more often than not municipal inspectors confiscate goods without issuing official receipts so that vendors cannot claim their goods back nor have any proof of their existence in that spot. At other times, they make an on-the-spot settlement and let the vendor save his goods in return for a bribe. Many run away as soon as they see the municipal or police authorities swoop down on a market. Therefore, every incident of confiscation cannot be proved. The tehbazari mafia will easily procure such bogus challans, certificates and so on. We have recorded testimonies that at the time of Gainda Ram scheme applications, the tehbazari mafia sold full files of bogus challans by charging Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000 per person and took more bribes to get such files processed. Ordinary vendors cannot make such heavy investments on procuring such documents, especially when the out come is uncertain.
11. Income Ceiling on Vendors: The MCD had told the Supreme Court that in order for a person to be eligible to apply, the total family income of the applicant should not exceed Rs. 45,000 per annum for which the applicant has to submit a sworn affidavit before an SDM or Metropolitan Magistrate. How is the SDM or MM to verify the real income of a street vendor? Even these certificates are going to be "purchased" through corrupt means. To insist that a person who is earning a livelihood through street vending should have an absurd ceiling on his income of Rs. 3,750 per month is to forever condemn people in this sector to grinding poverty. This is one of the few occupations available to urban poor, which provides avenues for upward mobility. In a city like Delhi it is very difficult for a family of 5-6 members to survive on Rs. 3,750 a month with even miserable jhuggis commanding rents ranging from Rs. 600 to 2,000 per month. Many have to support their village based families, old parents and younger siblings. Nowhere in the world has is there a ceiling on incomes earned from street vending. These criteria will only force people to lie about their incomes.
12. Residence Proof Criteria: The MCD Schemes submitted to the Supreme Court also requires that "the person should be a resident of the area under the jurisdiction of MCD for the last 5 years on the date of application, having proof, ration card, election I card or any other Government document." Recent migrants to the city are most in need of finding a source of livelihood because they have no experience of the city and have left behind families in distress. By requiring that they provide proof of having been a resident of an area under MCD jurisdiction for 5 years on the date of application is to exclude to those who are most vulnerable. Many stay in unauthorized jhuggies and many of them sleep on the footpath because they lack the resources to even rent a jhuggi. By blocking the entry of recent migrants, the municipal corporation would be forcing them into the clutches of mafia elements that will siphon away a good part of their meager income by way of "protection money."

Madhu Kishwar, For Manushi Sangathan