Street vendors who have earned their livelihood for generations in Ahmedabad’s historic Bhadra area allege that they are being repeatedly evicted by the Amdavad Municipal Corporation (AMC) despite holding valid licences and court protection. The long-running dispute, which began with the Bhadra Plaza redevelopment project in 2014, is now before the Gujarat High Court.
The vendors claim that although they are licensed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, they continue to be removed on the grounds of traffic congestion and encroachment. Labour organisations, including the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), have been pursuing legal remedies on their behalf, citing records that show vending activity in the area for 60 to 70 years.
The issue dates back to 2014, when the AMC began road excavation and barricading around the Bhadra Kali Temple as part of the redevelopment work, directly affecting vendors who had been operating there for generations. After years of litigation, licences were issued to 372 SEWA members, officially recognising them as legitimate vendors.
However, vendors allege that despite clear court directions, the focus has shifted from rehabilitation to eviction. They claim that even after recent High Court orders requiring alternative arrangements, the AMC relocated them to a largely deserted plot near Pankor Naka, far from the original Bhadra marketplace. According to the vendors, the new location has little footfall, resulting in a complete loss of livelihood.
As per the High Court order, three alternative sites — Plots A, B and C — were identified. Vendors say Plot C, which is closer to the Bhadra area, is most suitable, but the AMC is unwilling to allow them to operate there.
Responding to the allegations, AMC Deputy Commissioner Ramya Bhatt said the matter is sub judice and that vendors have been accommodated at Plot A (Pankor Naka) and Plot B (Dhalgarwad) in compliance with court directions. She added that meetings were convened with licensed vendors and SEWA representatives, but they did not attend.
Vendors’ representatives disputed this, stating that several meetings were held with AMC officials, including the municipal commissioner, but authorities consistently refused to permit vending either on the designated footpaths or at Plot C.
Surendrasinh Rathod, president of the Bhadra street vendors’ association, said that despite holding valid vending cards, vendors are not being allowed to operate at designated locations. He added that since being shifted during Navratri, vendors have had no business for over 25 days, pushing many families into severe financial hardship. Some have been forced to pawn jewellery or take high-interest loans to survive.
Residents have also raised concerns. Poonam Shah, a visitor to the area, said she was surprised to see the Bhadra market deserted and later learned that vendors had been relocated to Pankor Naka. “If these vendors are legal, the administration should support them. They are not even earning a fraction of what they used to,” she said.
Several women vendors echoed similar sentiments. Ramilaben, a licensed vendor, said her daily earnings of ₹500–600 have dropped to zero since the relocation. “The new plot is in a dilapidated one-way area where customers don’t come. We are struggling to feed our families,” she said.
Rajeshbhai, another vendors’ leader, said that 844 court-recognised vendors have been shifted away from Bhadra Plaza. With no customers, many return home without a single sale after spending on transport. Families that once earned ₹500–700 a day are now pawning gold to survive.
Devi-ben, who has been vending in the Bhadra area for 25 years, said vendors are being unfairly blamed for traffic congestion caused by outside traders. “We are ready to operate within a four-foot space on the footpath without causing obstruction. All we want is the right to earn a dignified living,” she said.
Activists argue that development projects should not come at the cost of livelihoods, and say that if alternative employment is not provided, authorities have no moral right to take away the means of survival of self-employed citizens earning their living lawfully.