NDMC survey: Street vendors fear ‘exclusion'
New Delhi:
Street vendors
operating in prominent locations of Lutyens' Delhi — including
Connaught Place
, India Gate, Regal, and Palika — fear being barred from setting up stalls, a move they say threatens their livelihoods and violates the National Capital Territory of Delhi Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Scheme, 2019.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Arbind Singh of the National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI) alleged that vendors in these areas were overlooked during the official survey process by vending committees. "NDMC can designate vending and non-vending zones later, but under the Act, all vendors must first be surveyed and included. Skipping areas amounts to denying vendors their right to exist," he said.
As per Section 8.4 of the scheme, a thorough survey and GPS-based demarcation are mandatory before declaring any area a vending or non-vending zone.
Singh noted that NDMC has so far surveyed only 1,400 vendors, while a previous MCD invitation drew responses from 5,600 applicants. "Declaring any area non-vending before completing the survey is arbitrary, illegal, and unjust, and denies vendors their right to livelihood and representation," he added.
Responding to the concerns, NDMC stated that the survey is still underway and the Delhi High Court has been apprised of its status.
"It is being conducted as per the relevant Act, rules, and scheme," said an NDMC official, though no details were provided regarding potential area exclusions.
The street vendor community is demanding full transparency in survey completion and GPS mapping. "If authorities continue to ignore the 2019 Scheme and violate vendors' rights, we will resist and defend their livelihoods and dignity," NASVI asserted in a statement.
Meanwhile, Atul Bhargava, president of the New Delhi Traders Association, maintained that Connaught Place is a no-vending zone per Supreme Court orders and said the matter is being pursued in the HC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC orders refund of input tax credit on closure of operations
MUMBAI: The Sikkim high court has ruled that businesses are entitled to a refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) even upon the discontinuation or closure of operations. The order follows a writ petition filed by SICPA India, a private limited company, which had sought a refund of about Rs 4.4 crore in unutilised ITC after ceasing its manufacturing activities in Sikkim. SICPA, which was a manufacturer of security inks and solutions, had decided to discontinue its Sikkim operations in Jan 2019, selling off its machinery and facilities by March 2020. The company had appropriately reversed ITC on asset sales but was left with a significant unutilised balance in its electronic credit ledger. The company challenged earlier orders from the assistant commissioner and the appellate authority, which had rejected SICPA India's refund application. The authorities had maintained that Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, limits ITC refunds to only two specific circumstances, neither of which includes business closure. However, SICPA argued that section 49(6) of the CGST Act provides for the refund of balances in the electronic credit ledger, subject to Section 54. They contended that the exceptions carved out in Section 54(3) cannot negate a vested right to ITC and its refund. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo Ankit Kanodia, one of the advocates which represented the company told TOI, "The HC examined the provisions of Sections 49(6) and 54(3) of the CGST Act and relevant case laws, including that of the Karnataka HC, in the case of Slovak India Trading, where refunds of unutilised credit were allowed upon business closure. The HC held that there is no express prohibition in the CGST Act against refunding unutilised ITC upon business closure and that retention of tax without authority of law is impermissible. " The judgment stated, "Although, Section 54(3) of the CGST Act deals only with two circumstances where refunds can be made, however the statute also does not provide for retention of tax without the authority of law." Consequently, in a significant judgment, the HC held that SICPA is entitled to the refund of unutilised ITC claimed by them. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Economic Times
28 minutes ago
- Economic Times
$1 billion boarding pass? Adani Airport may raise equity from international investors as it charts expansion route
Mumbai: Adani Airport Holdings Ltd (AAHL) may raise around $1 billion in equity from international investors as it evaluates future growth plans and potential acquisitions, according to Adani Group CFO Jugeshinder would be the first time the airport business is raising equity capital from an external investor. "Everyone wants to do airports with us - investors from the US, Middle East and Australia have evinced interest in investing in the business," said Sagar Adani, nephew of group chairman Gautam Adani. Sagar Adani is also executive director, Adani Green Energy. The airport unit, fully owned by Adani Enterprises Ltd, is valued at around $20 billion, according to sources, higher than GMR Airport's market capitalisation of $10.4 billion. GMR runs airports in New Delhi, Hyderabad, Goa and Nagpur among others. As per the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, India recorded a 10.35% annual growth in domestic air passenger traffic in FY25. Airlines carried a total of 14.54 million passengers. CareEdge Ratings projects air passenger traffic in India to rise at a 9% compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) between FY25 and FY27, taking the volume to 485 airports in Mumbai-Navi Mumbai and other key locations, AAHL aims to ride on this expansion to triple capacity over the next decade and a India's largest private airport operator, runs seven of them currently — Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Lucknow, Mangaluru, Jaipur, Guwahati and Thiruvananthapuram — and is putting the finishing touches to the one at Navi Mumbai that's set to open in company is currently fully funded but may look to bring in additional capital depending on timing and market conditions.'We also have not decided whether we want to do it or not yet. So what we are thinking about is — is it a good idea for us to do it right now or should we wait two-three years once the build-out happens and the value is established,' said Adani CFO Singh. GMR Group had secured a ₹6,300 crore investment from Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) to reduce debt at its promoter entity GMR Enterprises (GEPL) in January. 'We are open to acquisitions in India and internationally,' Singh said. 'For international deals, it will have to be an international city pair which caters to an Indian diaspora. If there's a lot of Indian passengers going to a specific airport in some other city in the world, and if that opportunity comes up, we will look at that.'The airport business will be hived off as a separate subsidiary in the next two-three years, followed by served 94 million passengers in FY25, up 7% from FY24.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Builder liable to register villa owners' association, rules RERA
Hyderabad: The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG-RERA) has directed Prime Infratech, promoter of Prime Alpenia villa project in Mokila, to facilitate registration of a formal association of allottees within 45 days. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The directive, issued on June 4, followed a complaint by a villa owner alleging continued harassment and illegal fund collection in the absence of a registered society. In his complaint, Budi Venkata Ramana, who resides in LB Nagar, said that he had purchased a villa in the project in Dec 2021 and despite paying Rs 3,41,000 for corpus and maintenance charges in Feb 2022, the promised registered villa owners' association was never formed. The villa remained unoccupied until April 2024 and was let out from May 1, 2024. In June and July 2023, he paid maintenance to one of the respondents based on an oral assurance that the society would soon be registered. However, he refused to continue payments to the unregistered group and notified the respondents in March 2024 through a legal notice that he would only pay a legally recognised society. Despite this, he claimed he was coerced into paying Rs 76,725 and that both he and his tenant faced threats, including possible utility disconnection. The authority ruled that the promoter failed to discharge the statutory duty under Section 11(4)(e) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates enabling the formation of an association or society of allottees. This failure, it observed, directly impairs the rights of buyers and falls well within its regulatory scope. The claim by the promoter that a group of residents voluntarily managing the premises absolves it of responsibility was rejected. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The duty to initiate and facilitate a registered association was termed a binding legal obligation, not a discretionary act. Respondents managing the unregistered group argued that they were collecting maintenance to ensure the upkeep of common areas, citing collective decision-making by residents. However, the authority clarified that disputes between residents or unregistered groups do not fall under its jurisdiction. It noted that Ramana had already approached the Telangana Co-operative Department in Oct 2024, which is the competent forum to address such internal matters. TG-RERA reiterated that the obligation to form a registered association and to hand over common areas was not optional. Any continued failure in this regard would invite regulatory consequences under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act. Simultaneously, it also held that the complainant was legally required to pay maintenance charges under Section 19(6), regardless of whether the villa was occupied, since the obligation was based on possession and not on actual use.
