SHILLONG: The Meghalaya and Greater Shillong Progressive Hawkers and Street Vendors Association (MGSPHSVA) has filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Meghalaya Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
The TUR in a statement issued to the media on Sunday said that the petition was admitted by the Court after it was filed on February 10.
TUR alleged that the State Act is unconstitutional and has reiterated its demand to implement the National Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. “The State Act is unconstitutional since it tries to bring an independent legislation when a Central Act is already operational. This has been brought to the notice of the High Court on February 10 by way of writ petition,” TUR said.
Stating that Mizoram had earlier brought out a state Act based on the 2009 policy but subsequently notified the Central Act when it came into operation, TUR said that Meghalaya should follow suit.
“This whole turmoil is the result of the stubbornness and disregard of the State Government in following proper legal procedures. In fact, the Central Government has been constantly sending queries to the State Government on the legality of the State Act,” the statement said.
TUR further stated that MGSPHSVA opposed the State Act not only for its illegality but also because of its highly regressive content that goes against most provisions of the Central law with regard to the protection and regulation of street vendors in the State.
“The Central Act provides for a minimum of 40 per cent representation of street vendors in the Town Vending Committee (TVC), which is the apex body concerned with regulating street vendors. An additional minimum of 10 per cent of members are also to be derived from community based organisations,” the statement from TUR added.
Highlighting the vending certificate, TUR stated that in the Central Act the number of street vendors to be given vending certificate is determined by looking at the holding capacity. “The first provision is mentioned in the State Act but the determining criterion of 2.5 per cent of the area’s population is not stated, which allows the local authorities to determine holding capacity arbitrarily,” TUR said.
Pointing out the anomalies of the State Act, TUR said, the Central Act provides principles governing relocation, which ensures that the socio-economic status of the street vendors does not deteriorate due to the change in location and this provision is missing from the State Act.
“An independent Dispute Redressal Committee has also been provided for in the Central Act which again, is absent in the State Act.” “To ensure that no genuine street vendor is deprived of his/her livelihood, no eviction is to take place until a proper in situ survey of the street vendors and their area of operation is done. This very important provision is missing from the State act,” TUR pointed out.
