Note on DMP opportunities and imperatives for NCMP informal sector commitments, sent on 23.06.04 (in view of diversionary-policy developments)

Informal sector trade, beneficial for weaker section workers that it employs and the common man whom it serves, is an obvious area for responding to the mandate that UPA’s National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) accepts is for “parties wedded to the welfare of … workers and weaker sections … committed to the daily well-being of the common man”, especially so in view of (besides specific NCMP commitments) four of UPA’s six basic principles for governance (‘equality of opportunity … in … employment’, economic growth in which ‘each family is assured of a safe and viable livelihood’, ‘well-being of … workers, particularly those in the unorganised sector’ and unleashing ‘creative energies of our entrepreneurs’) as well as the fact of recent informal sector policy initiatives being wholly contrary to NCMP.

In 2001 in June MoUD started making (at instance of women’s NGO SEWA) national hawker policy and in August PMO announced (at instance of women’s NGO/magazine MANUSHI) a hawker policy for Delhi to guide the nation. These initiatives were redundant in view of statutory provisions incorporated in 1990 in Delhi Master Plan (DMP), amounting to national guideline for having been approved by Parliament, for planned space for hawkers and low turnover shops, enforcement of which had not only been sought (directly by hawkers, small traders, customers from all classes) before the inferior policy initiatives started but also assured by authorities. Continuing efforts of citizens in pursuit of lawful solutions – pre-requiring the meagre amount of planned city space meant for informal trade to be saved from misuse – came and continue to be conveniently disregarded amidst, and despite sustained objections to, unlawful pursuit of diversionary policy initiatives to substitute entrepreneurs’ statutory entitlements to use of space with (NGO mediated) loans, organization, regulation, etc. (see Annexure to this note for DMP provisions and summary of engagements).

NDA’s two hawker policy initiatives started separately but merged later and were, in any case, strikingly similar. Both were at instance of known NGOs, which had nearly no prior work with hawkers. Both bypassed authorities, making corruption in them the basis for need for intervention. Both denied solutions in existing law to seek amendment of laws to permit continuation of the problem and their own schemes. Both overtook due processes, using sunwayis and seminars and friendly media to aggressively advocate their viewpoint. Both later also used authorities – SEWA involved Delhi Police, HUDCO, NCRPB, etc, for drafting policy and MoUD/HUDCO for disbursing loans to hawkers affiliated to it and MANUSHI used MCD to secure Supreme Court approval for illegal ‘pilot project’ hawker markets for it to develop and regulate (including by recovering charges and fines from hawkers in its ‘discipline’ and spared regulation by MCD for so being). Both also, while rejecting planning solutions to informal sector problems, used School of Planning and Architecture. In the course of these policy initiatives, scams were exposed in nearly all agencies involved in them. Submissions are also pending (in Central Vigilance Commission and Parliamentary Standing Committee and in response to s.11A Public Notices and in High Court) about misuse of space meant for informal sector and harassment and extortion continuing, while authorities duty-bound to stop such lawlessness and secure lawful solutions devoted themselves to supporting (in name hawker policy) schemes of two NGOs and synergistic schemes for misuse of planned space for informal sector, etc.

It was hawker policy thus made that NDA cabinet approved this year. SEWA and MANUSHI, at a consultation they arranged on 16.06.04, exhorted hawkers in Delhi to demand implementation of this policy from UPA. The few hawker groups present, however, decided to consider the following ‘conflicting’ demands already made by other hawkers in Delhi in view of UPA’s NCMP.

Preliminary demands agreed upon in a meeting on 13.06.04, sent to DDA and MoUD vide letter of 14.06.04

These demands are wholly consistent with UPA NCPM, which does not even mention NDA hawker policy and, instead, promises “a National Commission to examine the problems facing enterprises in the unorganised, informal sector”, in effect rejecting NDA policy by rejecting the problem assessment on which it was based. This rejection, and enforcement of statutory DMP provisions, is in line with the President’s view (expressed in his address to Parliament) that the “verdict is for establishing the rule of law” as well as with other NCMP commitments, as follows:

  • section on Labour promises workers’ rights “will not be taken away or curtailed” and DMP provisions are rights of workers to use of space that policy curtails / diverts attention from.
  • section on Scheduled Castes promises “land through implementation of … land redistribution legislation” and DMP is part of such legislation, with obligations for developers to reserve space for hawkers in commercial complexes, offices, institutions, etc, that are also in line with the idea of private sector reservations, all of which the policy disregards
  • section on Infrastructure promises “highest priority to … infrastructure like roads”, which requires problematic roadside informal sector to be accommodated in planned ways, as envisaged in DMP, not legitimized by modification of laws against it, as sought by policy.
  • section on Infrastructure promises comprehensive urban renewal, which requires holistic approaches inclusive of priority to backlog statutory tasks, as envisaged in DMP, not ad-hoc developer ‘pilot projects’ and schemes being pursued in name of policy.
  • section on Fiscal Policy promises ‘all subsidies will be targeted sharply at the poor’ and DMP envisages cross subsidizing development for the poor from remunerative development, while the policy proposes raising resource from hawkers (NGO membership fees and NGO-mediated loan repayments) to spare developers of profitable uses cross-subsidy burden.
  • section on Public Sector promises that in privatization UPA “will not support the emergence of any monopoly”, while the policy is for privatizing hawker ‘regulation’ to select NGOs

NCMP commitments calls for explicit reversal of NDA hawker policy and enforcement of DMP provisions and, for necessary de-obfuscation for the task of the National Commission and in view of UPA’s solemn pledge “to provide a government that is corruption-free, transparent and accountable at all times, to provide an administration that is responsible and responsive at all times”, also for an investigation into the processes by which extra-constitutional NGO policy initiatives came to acquire precedence over citizens’ initiatives in pursuit of enforcement of law.

Annexure-1: DMP provisions for informal sector retail trade

Acknowledging the importance of hawking as a source of livelihood for the poor, contribution of hawkers to society and economy and problems of exploitation and limitations of licensing, on the basis of census and surveys of mobile and stationery units, DMP incorporated in 1990 detailed norms for planned space for them in all types of markets as well as at transport nodes, near large housing areas, outside schools, hospitals, offices, work places, etc. These provisions are in line with the natural propensity of hawking activity to locate itself in the city and are designed to ensure that it functions in a planned rather than chaotic manner to obviate nuisance and, thereby, the basis of ‘harassment’ of hawkers. They provide for planned space for 3-4 lakh hawkers (over 800 in all in commercial and other facilities in each residential area for 100000, over 25000 around work areas and higher level facilities like hospitals, colleges, etc, a large number in higher-order commercial areas and bus/railway terminals, and over 100000 in weekly markets and informal sector eating places in several locations).

DMP also makes specific reservations in all planned commercial centres for ‘low turnover shops’ (like fruit and vegetable) that find planned commercial space unaffordable and come up informally in unplanned locations, including on space licensed for hawking. For certain types of shops (such as auto repair shops) that also tend to come up informally, DMP makes provisions for space in dispersed service centres where these can be located (along with LPG outlets, etc) in a manner that is convenient and at the same time nuisance-free.

DMP also sets out (as mixed land use regulations) detailed provisions for home-based establishments that come up informally and haphazardly so that their livelihood benefits for entrepreneurs and convenience advantages for local customers are not marred by detriment to quality of life in a residential area. These provisions require identification and redevelopment of mixed land use streets / pockets in existing development and provision for mixed land use pockets in new development as per the use and design parameters of stipulated regulations.

DMP provisions for informal trade are significant because, on account of the performance-nuisance conflict inherent to it, informal trade calls for spatial planning intervention. Licensing systems and restricting regimes (that tend to become exploitative and corruption-prone) are sighted on the nuisance dimension, while counter-initiatives overplay performance. On its own neither perspective can provide durable solutions, which are entirely predicated upon sufficient planned space for informal trade to ply without creating nuisance.

DMP provisions are statutory and amount to citizens’ entitlements to use of city space (in this case entitlements of hawkers and small traders to space for establishments) and to benefits of planned development (in this case informal retail that is hassle-free for traders, customers and others such as those passing by). DMP provisions are modifiable only by due process of law (that requires careful consideration on basis of planning data, consultations with concerned authorities / experts, opportunity for public scrutiny and comment through Public Notice process, etc) and ‘alternatives’ are expected to not only follow this process but also to safeguard and enhance rather than curtail or infringe existing entitlements. It is also noteworthy that in 1990 DMP increased the provisions for shops by four times specifically for accommodating informal trade in planned ways and ‘alternatives’ that disregard DMP provisions for it directly or indirectly contribute to misuse of that space for illegal profiteering that is wasteful of public land and institutional resources as well as unsustainable in market terms and responsible for speculative distortions and has, therefore, grave adverse implications for city development.

Annexure-2: Engagements in pursuit of enforcement of DMP informal sector provisions


  • 01.02.01: Hawkers began writing to LG, DDA, MCD, Police for DMP space and stopping harassment.
  • 27.02.01: Joint letter to urban development Minister, followed by individual post card reminder requests.
  • 23.03.01: Letter to DDA to request instructions against harassment pending DMP space allocation.
  • 27.03.01: Letter to MCD to request holding clearance drive in abeyance pending response from DDA.


  • 15.05.01: Report commissioned by hawkers, with detailed proposals, sent to DDA (summary to others)
  • 29.05.01: Hawkers’ rejoinder to ToI article about MANUSHI view on rickshaw pullers and hawkers
  • 29.05.01: Reminder request to DDA, LG and Minister for implementing DMP provisions as per report
  • 30.05.01: Urgent fax about removal, handed with report to Minister, at SEWA-MoUD national dialogue
  • 31.05.01: Letter about Minister’s endorsement of SEWA call for policy and (existing) DMP provisions
  • 31.05.01: Federation of RWAs’ letter to CM, LG, Minister, DDA, MCD in support of hawkers’ request


  • 04.06.01: Assurance by DDA VC, meeting summarized with suggestions sought in letter of 05.06.01
  • 21.06.01: Assurance by DDA Commissioner (Planning) at meeting with hawkers
  • 05.07.01: Letter to DDA Commissioner (Plg) for instruction against harassment in view of assurances
  • 18.07.01: Letter to DDA VC for instructions against harassment in view of assurances
  • 23.07.01: Letter to DUAC and DMRC about mandatory hawker space in markets, metro stations, etc
  • 23.07.01: Letter to HUDCO CMD to ask about hawker study in Delhi to be funded by HUDCO
  • 27.07.01: Hawkers’ letter to say they will wait outside DDA office for letter to stop harassment


  • 10.08.01: Request for appointment, faxed to urban development Minister for several days
  • 24.08.01: Planning Commission presentation, request to see Minister (who left after his speech)
  • 25.08.01: Letter to DDA VC (who left the Planning Commission experts’ meeting with the Minister)
  • 31.08.01: Memorandum welcoming PMO policy, drawing attention to DMP (cc CVC, CM, besides others)
  • 01.08.01: Hawkers’ post cards to PM to seek intervention in support of their initiative as well.
  • 06.09.01: Request to Police, MCD, etc, for instructions against harassment in view of PM policy
  • 11.09.01: Letter about need to embed PMO policy in DMP, haats being short of DMP entitlements, etc
  • 25.09.01: Letter to PM about continuing harassment, sent also to CVC on 29.09.01
  • 29.09.01: Letter to Police Commissioner against high-handed DDA action (cc DDA, PMO, CVC)


  • 03.10.01: Letter to Police Commissioner about threats by DDA staff (cc DDA, PMO, CVC)
  • 08.10.01: Joint request by hawkers and residents, sent to PM, LG, DDA, MCD, Police, CVC
  • 10.10.01: Partnership letter between RWAs’ Federation and Hawkers for interim arrangement for DMP solution, sent to CM, LG, DDA, Police, MCD, CVC, PMO.
  • 12.10.01: Letter to PM wrt his intervention in DDA corruption to request intervention for DMP space
  • 14.10.01: Shifting problematic roadside market to vacant commercial site, followed by Federation request to MCD to not issue roadside licenses, with copy to LG, CM, DDA, Police, CVC
  • 16.10.01: Federation/Hawkers’ urgent faxes to PM, CM, CVC, DDA about harassment by DDA staff
  • 17.10.01: Most-urgent faxes to PMO and urban development Minister about DDA staff threats
  • 18.10.01: Letter to Police Commissioner, DDA Minister, NHRC, CVC, PMO, with information of video, about demolition of hawkers/residents interim arrangement, with confiscation and burning
  • 19.10.01: DDA No. Commr.(Plg)/2001/89 to PMO admitting provisions and assuring implementation
  • 21.10.01: Minister and MoS (chairperson of SEWA-MoUD initiative) quoted promising inquiry in news report about demolition; requests made for appointment to place facts / video.


  • 06.11.01: Request to NHRC, CVC for opportunity to show film (hawkers and corruption) re foregoing
  • 08.11.01: Screening of film at SPA (no faculty, other than MANUSHI friendly adviser, attended).
  • 09.11.01: Request to area MP (Sahib Singh Verma) for appointment for taking up in Parliament.
  • 12.11.01: Hawkers’ request to PM and LG for opportunity to show film.
  • 13.11.01: MoS brief appointment granted, inquiry / longer meeting promised but did not materialize
  • 22.11.01: Note to CM about embedding bhagidari in law, wrt case of hawkers/Federation, etc, cc SPA.
  • 25.11.01: Federation letter to MCD (cc LG, CM) about night-time work on roadside hawking licenses
  • 26.11.01: Repeat request to CVC and NHRC for opportunity to show film
  • 27.11.01: MoS response to Lok Sabha question1407 about hawker policy with no reference to DMP
  • 28.11.01: Meeting with ITPI, which agreed to arrange colloquium, but did not (ITPI chief heads expert group on trade and commerce for ongoing DMP revision).
  • 30.11.01: Objection to ToI column on MANUSHI, saying planners be sacked/jailed, cc DDA, SPA,etc


  • 02.12.01: Hawkers request for Parliament question with MP at an area meeting led to unpleasant incident
  • 03.12.01: Removal action on instructions of councilor (MP’s party colleague)
  • 05.12.01: Bhagidari prize to illegal market and councilor supported roadside licenses despite objection
  • 10.12.01: Fairplay League seminar on Corruption (paper on ‘Subversion of Master Plan by DDA in the service of real estate mafia’; CVC gave inaugural address)
  • 12.12.01: Screening of film for full CVC, followed by note sent on 19.12.01
  • 31.12.01: Formal Objection to SPA study commissioned by MoUD through HUDCO (made to MoS, HUDCO CMD, SPA Director, with copy to PMO, CMO, LG Sectt, CVC, etc)


  • 23.01.02: Police complaint by residents about up-coming tehbazari shops on roadside (cc MCD, CVC)
  • 28.01.02: Request for copies of CVC letters to authorities in view of continuing problems / illegalities
  • 30.01.02: Objection to MCD DC press quote claiming ignorance of citizens’ initiatives.
  • 31.01.02: Letter to DCP about local police station support to illegal development, etc (led to inquiry)


  • 12.02.02: Offer of chronicle (Two tales and a portrait of anarchy) about NGO ‘policy dialogue’ and citizens’ initiatives for DMP solutions, made to all covered by previous engagements.
  • 20.02.02: Objection to SPA study wrt news report (to MoS, cc DDA, HUDCO, SPA)
  • 22.02.02: Letter to DMRC MD about mandatory hawker space in stations, commercial use, etc
  • 22.02.02: Meetings with Under Secretary in charge of SEWA initiatives in MoUD and Director Habitat Polytech (HUDCO) in charge of same on behalf of HUDCO, leaving on computer of latter power point presentation (Hawking Hawkers) based on chronicle offered on 12.02.02.
  • 24.02.02: Letter to manager of purported charitable hospital (come-up illegally without board outside) to point out DMP provisions for hawkers near hospitals in view of harassment of old tea vendor.
  • 27.02.02: Police complaint by CPI-M on behalf of affected tea vendor.
  • 26.02.02: Offer of power point presentation to, wrt hospital case and news reports of tehbazari fraud


  • 05.03.02: Letter to DDA VC about high reserve price of hawker stalls in markets.
  • 11.03.02: MoUD Notice N-11028/3/2001-UPA-III to attend meeting about SPA study. (meeting not held)
  • 20.03.02: CVC DO No. 001/DLH/053 asking for chronicle offered, sent vide letter of 12.04.02.
  • 08.04.02: Formal objection to constitution and composition of committee for national policy
  • 11.04.02: DDA CE(SWZ)/18(18)Comp/VK/7333 justifying interim arrangement demolition as removal of encroachment on flat residents’ request; strong exception, etc, sent vide letter of 15.05.02
  • 15.04.02: DDA Commissioner (Plg) public presentation remark that as a result of the citizens initiative DDA was working on hawker provisions; letter to DDA VC to point out provisions exist
  • 29.04.02: CVC DO No. CVC/2002/702 with general comment on planning, etc, in response to chronicle


  • 15.05.02: Letter to HUDCO and NCRPB to ask basis of policy role, with offer of paper based on chronicle
  • 15.05.02: Letter to DUAC, DMRC, CoA about hawker space, with offer of paper based on chronicle
  • 15.05.02: Letter to Police to ask it, as only Delhi authority on policy committee, to inform policy of DMP
  • 15.05.02: Letter to PM requesting implementation of PMO policy in context of DMP, pointing out problems / illegalities about haats, etc, SPA study, national policy initiative.
  • 20.05.02: MCD Commissioner’s phone call, letter to record, reiterate/clarify some points and express personal preference for executive channels in response to his ‘advice’ to move court
  • 21.05.02: HSMI-HUDCO DO No.HSMI/ED/Hawkers/2002/5656 re objection to SPA study saying there is Steering Committee under SPA Director. (In 2003 ED HSMI and Director SPA were removed)
  • 23.05.02: Letter to DDA Commissioner (Plg) to report up-coming misuse on hawker space in one market


  • 01.06.02: CMD HUDCO DO No.HUDCO/CMD/SV/2002 re dis-connect between its hawker policy and research, saying suggestions would be considered (HUDCO CMD was removed in 2002).
  • 10.06.02: DDA monitoring unit reply to letter of 23.05.02 saying that proposal for DMP hawker space was being made and its misuse meanwhile should be reported elsewhere in DDA.
  • 20.06.02: Letter to DDA VC, cc LG, about illegality of licenses, haats, etc, in view of DMP
  • 29.06.02: Letter to MCD to ask for basis for demolition of hawker stall despite DDA assurance / PM policy
  • 29.06.02: Letter to Police about demolition despite DDA assurances / policy with Police representation


  • 02.07.02: Letters to HUDCO, MoUD to ask for ‘acknowledgement’ for DMP provisions being mentioned in draft policy due to meetings of 22.02.02 to help cope with local harassment. (courtesy refused).
  • 10.07.02: Letter to DDA Commissioner (Plg) to request permission for interim arrangement as no-cost action-research (at par with SPA study) or pilot project (at par with MANUSHI/PMO initiatives).
  • 15.07.02: Letter to DUAC about hawking space, cc MoUD, DMRC, DDA, CoA


  • 12.09.02: Letter to PM wrt DDA defending illegal HIG flats in court as enthusiasm about a PM directive to seek directions for similar enthusiasm for DMP hawker space assured to PMO on 19.10.01.
  • 22.09.02: Letter to MCD w.r.t. to DDA Public Notice of 15.09.02 to point out MCD responsibilities under DD Act and 74th Constitution Amendment.
  • 24.09.02: Hawkers’ objection in response to s11A Public Notice of 15.09.02 on grounds of DMP amendment not being justifiable in face of refusal to implement DMP even on sustained request
  • 08.10.02: Letter to MCD about Standing Committee decision to issue photo IDs, cc: DDA, Police, HUDCO
  • 08.10.02: Letter to MCD asking basis of another removal / confiscation despite policy, etc.
  • 10.10.02: Letter to Police about confiscation / removal despite policy, cc DDA, MCD, HUDCO
  • 12.10.02: Objection to DDA (cc MoUD) auction tender for commercial space for unrestricted use.
  • 15.10.02: Letter to MoUD (cc DDA, MCD, Police), for interim arrangement permission before auctions
  • 16.10.02: Flat residents’ objection to DDA tender in view of requests to accommodate existing shops
  • 17.10.02: Village residents’ objection to DDA tender in view of requests for DMP workplaces in vicinity.
  • 24.10.02: Slum residents’ objection to DDA tender in view of local shops eating into low income housing.
  • 24.10.02: DDA Commissioner (Plg) phoned to say ‘pilot project’ was approved; letter to ask details and suggest management ideas and, in view of MCD policy flux to maybe start without it
  • 31.10.02: WP 6980/2002 admitted against tender, tender not quashed on account of delay, but DDA and MoUD were issued notice to see if “any direction for future guidance may be issued”.


  • 16.12.02: Objection in response to s11A Public Notice for relaxing DMP restrictions on commercial use of homes on grounds, among others, of being attempt to ‘spare’ planned commercial space


  • 08.01.03: Objection in response to s11A Public Notice for Metro property development on grounds, among others, of refusal of DMRC to follow mandatory DMP provisions for hawkers, etc
  • 16.01.03: DDA counter-affidavit admitted existence / non-implementation of DMP provisions, assured implementation with MCD as per report of May 2001 and inquiry into specific cases of misuse cited, but skirted questions of illegality of tender and prayed PIL be dismissed with costs.
  • 27.01.03: ‘Pilot project’ assured to hawkers at hearing of responses to s11A Public Notice of 15.09.02
  • 28.01.03: Letter to Commissioner (Plg) for details of ‘pilot project’ / permission for interim arrangement
  • 04.02.03: Letter to MCD (wrt DDA assurance in affidavit of 16.01.03 and at Public Notice hearing of 27.01.03 at which MCD was represented) for instructions against harassment and issuing of licenses, and of details of licenses already issued so bonafide hawkers’ interests are protected
  • 05.02.03: DDA Monitoring Wing’s No. F 11(18)96/Mont/55 said pilot scheme had been worked out.
  • 14.02.03: Letter to MoUD about frivolous ‘reply’ of 05.02.02, reiterating questions, etc.
  • 18.02.03: Letter to Union HRD Minister to suggest SPA be funded by NGOs, since a senior official of HUDCO had ‘solicited’ for MANUSHI the planner whose objections to HUDCO involvement in SEWA policy HUDCO had disregarded. (The HUDCO senior official is on DMP revision expert group for trade and commerce and also on ‘board of scholars’ of an NGO, another scholar on whose board wrote the ToI column for MANUSHI that suggested planners be sacked / jailed).
  • 22.02.03: Letter to MCD to demand stopping hawker evictions / plans to license to others (cc Police)
  • 25.02.03: Letter to Police about hawkers’ harassment in context of court assurance of project for them.
  • 25.02.03: Letter to Police about attack on hawkers, seeking parity with RWAs in community policing and NGOs in support on hawker issue, response to complaints, copies of policy task force instructions against harassment, DMP hawker provisions at police stations and a meeting.
  • 26.02.03: Letter to Police, DDA, MoUD about removal threat to hawker outside vacant commercial site
  • 28.02.03: Letter to MoUD about continuing harassment and no evidence of DMP ‘pilot project’ and continuing DDA tenders and project / policy initiatives by MoUD / its authorities in disregard of DMP, asking for copies of MoUD instructions against harassment, about DMP, etc.


  • 07.03.03: Letter to SHO for MLCs of hawkers attacked on 24.02.03 08.03.03: Letter to Police, wrt to incident of rape of maid by flat resident and prior incident of attack on hawkers, to draw attention to risks of ‘empowerment’ of just one class in community policing, etc
  • 12.03.03: Letter to DCP to point out illegalities in his direction to remove non-tehbazari hawkers, etc
  • 12.03.03: Letter to MCD to reiterate illegality of tehbazari in terms of DMP and seek instructions to police to stop action against non-tehbazari hawkers and information about MCD’s court petition, etc
  • 12.03.03: Letter to MoUD about Police action inconsistent with DMP and MoUD policy with Delhi Police
  • 29.03.03: Letter to MoUD (cc CBI) to object to clearance, a day after CBI exposed the ‘DDA scam’ (in which DDA Commissioner (Plg) was removed), of proposal for DMP modification for which response to s.11A Public Notice of 15.12.02 were pending and related issues sub-judice.
  • 06.04.03: Letter to SHO for MLCs requested on 07.03.03, action-taken reports on complaints, etc
  • 26.04.03: Letter to NDMC wrt to news reports of market beautification plans to draw attention to DMP


  • 14.05.03: Letter to MCD about disregard of DMP in its hawker licensing, schemes and projects, etc
  • 20.05.03: Objection to MoUD announcement of ‘policy’ for conversion from freehold to leasehold.
  • 28.05.03: Letter to Police, DDA, MCD against eviction of hawkers in view of DMP space assurance, etc.
  • 31.05.03: Meeting with MCD Commissioner, who said Master Plan is outdated concept, etc
  • 31.05.03: Presentation at IIC of hawkers’ experiences as well as hawker policy dialogue


  • 08.07.03: Hawkers’ response to Parliamentary Standing Committee notice for views (re DDA scam)
  • 14.07.03: Letter to DDA, HUDCO, MUD, etc, about conflict between proposed pilot project for in-situ slum flats (at instance of NGO) and DMP hawker project assured to court, etc.
  • 29.07.03: Objection to DMP ‘guidelines’ to liberalize (especially commercial use) in disregard of legal, judicial and parliamentary processes (to DDA, MoUD, Parliamentary Committee, President)
  • 22.08.03: Court direction to MoUD to reply and for secretary to file explanation for delay
  • 31.08.03: Letter to Police Commissioner for appointment in view of compassionate newspaper article by Jt Commissioner representing Delhi Police on policy coinciding with police harassment


  • 10.09.03: Letter to MoUD, DDA, Parliamentary Committee enumerating instances of disregard / violation of DMP provisions for informal trade and commodification of space meant for it by DDA and MoUD authorities, in NGO / MCD / Delhi Police / SPA initiatives, and MoUD ‘guidelines’, ‘freehold policy’, etc, and failure of DDA to act against misuse or implement DMP provisions wrt to news of DDA slashing prices of commercial property to less than cost, a drift to bankruptcy.
  • 11.09.03: Request for urgent hearing by Standing Parliamentary Committee re functioning of DDA in view of developments apropos commercial land / freehold conversion scheme
  • 14.09.03: Letter to MoUD wrt presentation of SPA study to request reply in court, with copy to MoHRD.
  • 23.09.03: Letter to MCD to request details of new policy and its case in Supreme Court for MANUSHI
  • 23.09.03: Letter to MoUD (cc DDA, MoHRD, Parliamentary Committee) requesting it to ensure facts of DMP and High Court assurance are placed before Supreme Court in MCD matter, review SPA study for failing to include either court matter, and clarify hawker policy jurisdiction.
  • 28.09.03: Letter to MCD (cc DDA, MoUD) about MCD sweeper-in-charge issued challans to hawkers for 200/- fines to mobile magistrate, seeking clarification of new policy, etc.


  • 20.10.03: Letter to MoUD (cc DDA, CGWA, DJB) to challenge conformity of Vasant Kunj Malls with DMP.
  • 28.10.03: Letter to former CAG inquiring in to SPA (with letters of 18.02.03, 14.09.03, 23.09.03)
  • 10.11.03: Letter to CVC wrt to ‘inauguration’ of old DDA website now ‘lying’ about DMP informal sector provisions, to bring to attention facts (as done when CVC intervened in hawking issue in 2001 on behalf of MANUSHI), summarizing that correspondence and subsequent engagements.
  • 19.11.03: Letter to MoUD (cc DDA), drawing attention to MANUSHI magazine article saying MCD Commissioner took upon himself the “challenge… to get the Supreme Court to put its stamp of approval on the model market project…”, etc, to request at least reply in the citizens’ PIL.
  • 10.12.03: MoUD told High Court it is ‘not desirous of filing any reply’ in WP 6980/2003
  • 17.12.03: High Court directed petitioners in WP 6980/2003 to file details of layout plan, zonal plan and DMP violations on all commercial sites; additional affidavit was accordingly filed, along with MANUSHI account of how Supreme Court approval was obtained and fact of diversion of 30 crores outside ambit of DD Act for pretty-fication of markets, inclusive of misuse, etc. (MoUD continues to desire not to reply and DDA has also not filed a counter to the additional affidavit).
  • 22.12.03: Letter to CVC to bring to its attention MANUSHI articles about Supreme Court ‘approval’.


  • 15.02.04: Letter to MoUD to object to proposal to invest 30 crores on redevelopment of markets and to seek use of same for DMP informal sector provisions as per law, court assurance, etc.
  • 19.02.04: Letter to CVC about the 30 crores project for markets/misuse beautification/redevelopment.
  • 22.04.04: Letter to MoUD to point out that LG’s ‘proposal’ to allow amalgamation through MCD’s ongoing byelaw reform amounted to admittance of illegality of DDA tenders that already allow it, etc.
  • 13.05.04: Objection in response to s11A Public Notice for unregulated metro property development
  • 14.06.04: Letter to DDA, MoUD for preliminary demands in view of NCMP (excerpted on p.2 of this note)
  • 16.06.04: Letter to NDMC, who was listed panelist but did not attend NASVI/SEWA-MANUSHI hawkers’ consultation of 16.06.04, to reiterate 26.04.03 letter in view of what NDMC hawkers said there.
  • 16.06.04: Letter to MoUD Under Secretary, listed panelist who did not attend, about the proceedings

[The above do not include requests for DMP implementation by informal sector traders other than hawkers in Vasant Kunj, made by, eg, hawkers in Vasant Lok, Maharani Bagh, Yamuna Pushta, etc, and small shopkeepers in Masudpur, Andheria Morh, Yusuf Sarai, etc. Also not included are presentations / papers to draw attention to existing entitlements at workers’ rights seminars, etc]

Also see:

  • covering letter of 23.06.041
  • 1. Sub: Note: CMP opportunities and imperatives – Delhi Master Plan provisions for informal sector
  • 2. Commerce, National Common Minimum Programme, Delhi Master Plan Monitor
    DMP has explicit provisions for hawking, small shops, regulated mixed use, etc, that recent informal sector policy has been disregarding to maintain extortionist status-quo and other policy has been subverting by allowing misuse of their DMP space. NCMP commitments for informal sector call for rectification by enforcing DMP or better solutions.