Thirteen years ago, in 1985, the Supreme Court pronounced on the conflict between the hawkers' right to a livelihood and the pedestrian's right of passage. The landmark judgment said: ``Public streets... are meant for the use of the general public. They are not laid to facilitate carrying on private trade or business.'' The core of the order was the creation of hawking and non-hawking zones. And therein, it seems, lies the rub.Mayor Nandu Satam had wanted enforcement of such zones to start next week. But the Bombay High Court has stayed this on a petition from some citizens' organisations. They have objected to hawking zones on their streets. Hawker unions have also threatened legal process. Itis ironical that two major collaborators in the creation of the problem citizens and hawkers are now battling the third, who is actually offering a solution: the Municipality.

But it is no longer a matter of `if' but of `how hawker/non-hawker zones will be enforced. The Supreme Court is not to be ignored. Nonetheless, the process has been put on hold. A serious problem might acquire an even graver form. For, in the absence of zoning, hawkers have resisted removal and sought stay orders by pleading the absence of zoning! Hence, the unchecked proliferation of hawkers. The city still has a while to wait and watch, it seems.

How many hawkers does Mumbai have? A census conducted by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences and YUVA puts the number at slightly over 1,00,000. The BMC estimates 95,000. There is no doubt about one figure. Only 36,000 of them are licenced or pay daily charges.

Many citizens may well have an honest grievance when a hawking zone materialises at their doorstep. But is it a legitimategrievance? The BMC made public its plans for zones in each ward at least three years ago. Along with my residents' association, I visited my ward office and registered my views which were taken into account in a modification. The BMC advertised in four languages in city newspapers, inviting citizens' suggestions and complaints on maps available in the ward offices. It is no answer for citizens to protest now, on the plea that hawkers should be moved to other people's doorstep, never mind who.

But the fact is that hawking zones are not final even now. The citizens' role would be to go, not to the courts, but to the ward office. Adjustments are possible. Delay in zoning is trouble.

There is also no doubt that the hawkers provide the citizen a valuable service: lower priced goods, conveniently available, hours before and after regular shops open and shut. But what price convenience? One might wonder whether easy convenience for some should spell obstruction for most. Also, it is not as if zoning will sweepaway hawkers. They will be available, but within defined limits. It is to be a system and a system implies exclusions. The question is whether we are willing to pay the price of negligence over many years to prevent further deterioration.

There is little doubt that the Municipality and the Mayor-in-Council are serious. Zones have been selected in all 23 wards. Licenced hawkers, and tens of thousands of other eligible ones, will get demarcated spaces and photo-ID cards. Signboards are going up. Infringement will attract a penalty of up to Rs 5,000. Charges for redeeming seized goods have been doubled. In other words, there are forbidding penalties for offenders. The number of lorries allotted to dealing with seized goods will go up from 30 to 90. Ninety more inspectors have been drafted.

The BMC and city police have new co-ordination plans to enforce the system on a continuing basis. The costs of 155 officers and men of the city police are borne by the BMC. They are at the BMC's daily disposal. This numberwill go up if necessary. The Commissioner of Police, in a meeting with Mr Nandu Satam, has committed support.

The zoning plan itself is a new one. In hawkers' zones, the standard area of a hawker pitch is 1 metre by 1 metre, going up to a maximum of 2 metres by 1 meters for cooked food stalls. Pitches will be assigned by drawing lots. The minimum space for pedestrians on pavements is 1.4 metres. Access to homes, shops and restaurants is guaranteed by a 2.4-metre corridor. Space between hawkers and groups of hawkers has also been defined. No hangings will be permitted over a stall as protection from the elements. No smuggled or stolen goods will be sold.

After a hawking zone has been fixed, other public space in a ward will be ``non-hawking''. Railway stations will be free of hawkers. There will be nothing for 25 metres beyond the station building and nothing on approach roads for at least 100 metres, if not more. Bus stops will be clear. Hawking near schools, hospitals, dispensaries and religious placeswill be regulated. Roads and lanes less than seven metres wide and footpaths narrower than 2.4 metres across will be kept free of hawkers.

The BMC will require cleanliness from hawkers at all times. After three warnings, the licence will be revoked as it will be if there is sub-letting, spreading beyond space allotted, belongings kept overnight and the like.

Installing and enforcing all of this will demand, firstly, strictness on the part of the BMC. More importantly, it casts the citizen in a vital role, one of vigilance and partnership with the ward offices. It is because these were lacking that the problem exists in the first place. The experience of numerous citizens and citizens' organisations vis-a-vis the BMC has been excellent. They cannot be indicted ex parte.

The Supreme Court order gives the municipal commissioner to proceed with zoning, but requires him to consult citizens and hawkers. But consultation cannot go beyond reasonable limits. It could not have been the apex court's wish that thecommissioner consult every residents' association and every hawkers' union (there are several dozens of these). We seem to be in a situation that reminds me of what an old boss of mine would say: ``You're right, but I am not wrong.'' Some legitimacy adheres to everyone's position. The danger is administrative paralysis.

But there is one position that is unassailable: Mumbai's need to rescue public spaces via the Supreme Court's order. For once, political will, bureaucratic alacrity and commitment, even unions and numerous licenced hawkers, are firmly on the side of the pedestrian. The voice of many interests have been raised. Citizens who care about public spaces in their city are not well organised. But they must now speak up to ensure this scheme does not flounder. When will such an opportunity recur?

Gerson D'Cunha is an ex ad-man, theatre personality and a founder-member of Bombay First