Recently, the single-headed bench of Justice Sameer Jain of the Rajasthan High Court has rebuked the state authorities for neglecting the rampant encroachments on public roads and streets, which have significantly disrupted traffic flow. 

The court has taken proactive action by suo moto initiating proceedings to address this urgent issue.

The Court emphasized that encroachment by hawkers and vendors constitutes a significant 'public nuisance', detracting from the historical heritage and aesthetic appeal of cities with a rich cultural background. While acknowledging the challenges faced by economically disadvantaged hawkers, the Court clarified that personal gain through encroachment cannot be tolerated at the expense of public infrastructure established for the smooth movement of citizens.

In essence, encroachment upon public ways and streets, including the most prominent free-ways in the city of Jaipur by street vendors, hawkers and kiosks, has presumably skipped the attention of the public bodies/administration, including the enforcement authority i.e. police, so much so, that the said encroachments have effectively made a mockery of the public infrastructure, leading to a multifold increase in traffic congestions, hampering the daily life of the ordinary citizens.

This Court cannot help but make an endeavour to ensure that the citizens do not lose confidence in the State machinery.

Justice Sameer Jain highlighted that the deliberate neglect by enforcement authorities has led to the unfortunate situation of 'heightened traffic congestions and subsequent decline in the quality of life for the citizens of the state.

Further, the bench emphasized that the rights of kiosk users, vendors, and hawkers are not absolute. Consequently, the state is vested with the authority under Sections 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) and 283 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to address instances of public nuisance occurring in public places.

The court also mentioned the articles published in the daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Pathrika', which illustrated the obstacles posed by encroachers to public movement in Jaipur. In response, the court appointed Advocate Shovit Jhajharia as an amicus curiae in the case. Furthermore, the single-judge bench emphasized that suo moto cognizance has been taken to address encroachments in all districts falling within the court's jurisdiction.

During the proceedings, the Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) acknowledged the existence of the encroachment problem and assured the court that an effective removal drive could be initiated within 10 days. The court noted and acknowledged this undertaking in its order.

Following this, Advocate Prahlad Sharma, Chairman of the Bar Association, submitted a list of advocates categorized by their respective areas who could potentially assist the police as volunteers in the encroachment removal drive. The High Court accepted this list as part of the official record.

While initiating suo moto cognizance, the court reiterated that it had previously issued comprehensive directives to address encroachments in the case of Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan and Others (2017).

The High Court had issued directives to the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and state authorities, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive master development plans for towns and cities to effectively address the issue of encroachments. However, the court noted with concern that these directives, along with decisions from other apex courts and high courts, were disregarded by the state machinery.

Case Title: Suo Moto v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.