If vendors already manage space among themselves, why do we need government rules at all?

Informal order works until the stakes rise, and then it needs backing. In a settled neighbourhood market, where vendors, shopkeepers, and residents know one another, claims over space stay stable and everyone knows who sits where. The trouble comes when a pitch suddenly turns valuable.

A new metro station lifts the footfall. A road-widening scheme shrinks the space. A mall, a festival, or a weekly bazaar concentrates buyers in one spot. Once a place becomes more profitable, the stronger parties start pushing the weaker vendors out. The neighbourly arrangement that held for years cracks under the new money.

This is where rules earn their place. Their job is not to erase informal arrangements. It is to protect the ones that work and correct the ones that turn unfair.

Good rules do a few plain things. They identify the vendors already there. They block arbitrary eviction. They keep passage clear for pedestrians and ambulances. And they stop officials, shopkeepers, resident groups, and politically connected vendors from capturing the process for themselves.

So the choice was never “no rules” against “full planning.” The sensible path is modest: leave the working arrangements alone, and step in only where conflict, safety, or serious obstruction makes rules genuinely necessary.