Encroachment Drive Against 177 Traders at Agricultural Produce Market Committee Stalls; Traders Ask: "Why is the Administration Ignoring the Lack of Basic Amenities?"
Departmental Action Halted Following Secretary's Transfer; Current SDO Kumar Rajat Promises Review and Action After One Month
Ranchi: Departmental action had been initiated regarding alleged encroachments by 177 traders within the Agricultural Produce Market Committee premises; however, the entire matter was put on the back burner after the Market Committee Secretary was transferred midway through the proceedings. Now, the current Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Kumar Rajat, has stated that the case will be reviewed, and appropriate action will be taken after a period of approximately one month.
Meanwhile, a correspondent from *M Bharat 24 News LIVE* visited various shops within the Market Committee complex and interacted with the traders. Questioning the administrative action, the traders argued that the basic infrastructure and amenities within the Market Committee itself are inadequate. Several shopkeepers stated that they were compelled to erect sheds and temporary structures out of necessity to protect their merchandise from rain and harsh sunlight.
The traders further alleged that the Market Committee itself has encroached upon public space by constructing shops along the roadside, yet no action is ever taken against it. Many traders also expressed their willingness to pay rent for the specific areas currently being labeled as encroachments, noting that applications to this effect have already been submitted to the Market Committee.
Shopkeepers Present Their Side
The shopkeeper at AS-21 could not be reached for comment.
Sandeep Dhanuka of AS-22 expressed his displeasure, stating that he had no comments to offer regarding the encroachment issue.
The shop owner at AS-23 was not present, while the shop at AS-24 was found to be closed.
The shopkeeper at AS-25 explained that he was compelled to extend his shop structure to provide protection against rain and sunlight. He added that while the administration is free to have the structure removed if it so desires, he is willing to pay rent for the space should a rental rate be established.
The shop owner at AS-26 was not present.
Kamlesh Kumar of AS-27 informed the correspondent that the shop is operated as a partnership venture. He noted that the shed was installed specifically to provide protection against sunlight and rain. Ravi Jhunjhunwala of AS-28 stated that a tin shed is essential to protect merchandise from rainwater; otherwise, traders would incur losses.
Shopkeepers were not present at AS-29, AS-30, and AS-31, while the shopkeeper at AS-32 had stepped out.
The shopkeepers at AS-33 and AS-34 stated that both shops belong to them. Gaurav Kumar remarked, "This does not belong solely to me, but to everyone. This arrangement has been in place ever since the shops were constructed."
Shravan Prasad Chaurasia of AS-35 explained that the shed was erected to provide protection against the sun and rain. Due to the small size of the shop, it was not feasible to install a shutter.
Ravi Prakash Sharma of AS-37 also cited the need for protection against the sun and rain as the reason for installing a shed.
Sunil Chaudhary of AS-38 asserted that this does not constitute encroachment. He noted that the Market Committee is free to have it removed if they so desire. He explained that the shops are small, often necessitating that merchandise be displayed outside. Since rain-soaked goods result in losses for both traders and customers, temporary sheds have been erected. He claimed that these structures do not impede the movement of traffic. Furthermore, he alleged that the Market Committee itself has engaged in encroachment by constructing shops along the roadside.
Pramod Krishna Chaudhary of AS-39 stated that, owing to the small dimensions of the shop, rainwater seeps inside, creating a risk of merchandise spoilage. He affirmed that the movement of vehicles remains unhindered. He added that if a rental fee were established for the encroached area, all traders would be willing to pay it. He also alleged that the Market Committee has constructed additional shops and subsequently allocated them.
Shravan Kumar of AS-40 remarked, "This situation has persisted for as long as the shops have existed." He mentioned that an application has been submitted to regularize the allocation of this space. He suggested that a middle ground should be found to ensure relief for everyone involved.
**What the Current SDO, Kumar Rajat, Had to Say**
The current Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Kumar Rajat, stated that he has recently assumed office and is currently gathering information regarding the entire matter. He stated that further action would be taken following a review of the documents related to the Market Committee and the measures previously undertaken. He added that, taking cognizance of the matter, necessary decisions would be reached within approximately one month.
Currently, the drive to remove encroachments within the Market Committee remains in limbo due to the transfer of the Secretary and administrative sluggishness; meanwhile, traders attribute the issue to long-standing systemic arrangements and a lack of facilities.
