“این عکس یک نمونه است”

“This photo is an example.”
Mohammad Mohabbi

There is no doubt that streets, alleys, and sidewalks are the passage for ordinary people and are considered part of the public rights of citizens. Any disruption to this right is considered a violation. In general, it can be said that in the ownership of public roads, all citizens are joint owners and the municipality is only responsible for maintaining them, not owning them.

The construction of barriers has become a tangible phenomenon in Iranian city life in recent years. The process of dealing with this phenomenon, for reasons that will be discussed in the following sections, is itself one of the existing problems. In the process of dealing with this issue, many municipal barrier officers resort to violence. Carrying out this legal duty has always been accompanied by numerous challenges and we witness clashes between municipal officers and offenders every day. This is because it seems that there is not enough executive guarantee in the existing law to prevent these violations. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully review the issue of barriers in Iran, which is mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 55 of the Municipal Law. This is because there is not enough transparency and executive guarantee. In addition, there are no legal and judicial procedures to deal with violations by officers in this section, and one of the reasons for the continuation of violent and uncontrolled actions by some officers is the lack of these legal procedures.

The concept of a dam crossing.

A “ma’bar” (passage) means a place of passage and is used in an idiomatic sense to refer to a place that is used for passing and traveling. A “ma’bar” is created as a result of the separation of lands according to Article 101 of the Municipal Law. A “ma’bar” dam refers to any action or inaction that causes the blockage of public passages in a way that makes passing through them permanently or temporarily impossible. Any person can legitimately use public passages as long as their actions do not harm others, and in this regard, the public authority can prevent individuals from trespassing. According to the Citizenship Law, the use of public passages, squares, parks, and public gardens is the natural right of every citizen, and no one can prevent this legitimate use. The municipality is responsible for preserving and maintaining public passages according to the law, and is equally responsible for damages caused by defects or “ma’bar” dams. In cases

The municipal law has a serious legal issue regarding the streets. As mentioned in the introduction, all citizens are joint owners of public streets and the municipality is only responsible for their maintenance, not ownership. However, according to clause 1 of article 55 and clause 6 of article 96 of the municipal law, all streets, parks, and public gardens are public property and owned by the municipality, and their use for commercial or residential purposes or any other title is prohibited. The municipality is obligated to prevent this and remove any obstacles, and free the mentioned streets and places through its agents. However, this issue is in clear contradiction with public law principles. The municipality is a public institution and only owns its own offices, while the streets and public roads are joint property of all citizens. The criteria for dealing with street blockages should be “harm to others” and not the municipality’s sense of ownership. Therefore, in the first place, amending this clause of the law is necessary.

The principle of no harm.

The principle of “no harm” means the denial of legitimacy of any kind of harm and damage in Islam. This principle is also interpreted as the principle of harm, the principle of harm and damage, the principle of no harm and no damage, and the principle of denying harm. The principle of no harm is one of the well-known principles of jurisprudence that is applicable in most areas of jurisprudence, and its essence is that harm has no legitimacy in Islam and any kind of harm and damage has been denied in Islam.

The Quranic document for this rule is verse 233 of Surah Al-Baqarah: “No mother should be harmed through her child, nor should a father be harmed through his child.” This verse prohibits parents from causing harm to their children. According to another interpretation of the verse, it also prohibits one parent from harming the other through their child. Therefore, it can be understood from this verse that causing harm to anyone through another person is forbidden and unjust.

But the most important document of this rule is the famous hadith of “La Dharar” from the Prophet of Islam. This hadith is from the story of “Samurah bin Jundab” in which the phrase “La Dharar wa La Dhirar” is mentioned. “Kulayni” quotes in the book of Usul Kafi that Imam Baqir said: “During the time of the Messenger of God, there was a man named Samurah bin Jundab who had a palm tree near the house of a man from the Ansar. He would come and go from inside the ground of that Ansari man. Samurah bin Jundab would go to the Ansari man several times and disturb him in order to take care of his tree and his work. The owner of the house said to Samurah: You come to my house without permission and cause disturbance, so from now on, ask for permission when you

The great Imami scholars believe in this rule: the intention in this rule is to negate non-intentional harm, meaning that whoever harms another person is obligated to provide compensation and retribution, and in Islam, there is no harm that cannot be rectified.

Therefore, according to the principle of no harm, firstly, if the blockade does not cause serious harm to the rights of others, it should be avoided and dealing with it is contrary to the spirit of jurisprudence and law. For example, in many northern cities of the country, people and citizens welcome street vendors and buy more fruits and vegetables from them, considering this traditional form of selling necessary for their livelihood. The sale of fresh and natural products by northern farmers in cities is a customary issue in that region. Therefore, the confrontation that took place with a female street vendor in Fuman a while ago was against the customs of that region. In that area, street vendors not only do not violate the rights of citizens, but they are also popular among them and dealing with these individuals is not harmful, but rather harmful to others.

And if blocking the passage causes harm to the rights of others, the approach should be taken in several stages, rather than having a municipal officer intervene violently. Better solutions, such as fines and summoning to court, can be used for a better approach. Undoubtedly, if during the intervention of the municipal officer, any harm or damage, whether financial, physical, or to one’s reputation, is caused to the seller or anyone accused by the officer of blocking the passage, it must be compensated according to the principle of no harm.

Legal issues, duties, and authorities of the dam officials.

Article 55 of the amendment to the Municipalities Law emphasizes that “to prevent the establishment and construction of all facilities that may cause inconvenience to residents or violate health principles in cities, the municipality is obligated to prevent the establishment of factories, workshops, public garages and repair shops, shops, as well as centers that produce flammable materials, stables, livestock centers, and in general all businesses and industries that create noise, smoke, pollution, and serve as breeding grounds for insects and animals, and take action to demolish brick, plaster, and lime kilns, as well as public hot water tanks that are detrimental to health.”

The main purpose of this clause is to combat false occupations, and its underlying philosophy is to combat drug dealers and false occupations that harm the economy.

But is street vending necessarily harmful to the economy? As mentioned in the previous paragraph discussing the non-harm principle, this issue is not always detrimental to the overall economy. In fact, in some cases, it can even contribute to economic growth. So where does the root of the problem lie with street vendors, who are often accused by municipal authorities of creating obstacles? It seems that they mostly come from the lower and lower-middle classes of society, and considering that this class has been growing in the past decade or two, we should not only look at this issue from a legal perspective. A macroeconomic perspective is also necessary. Street vendors provide cheap goods for the poor class of society, and in some areas, even people who are not necessarily poor or rich, as mentioned earlier, prefer to buy from these vendors for items such as fruits, vegetables, and other homemade food products because they usually have more trust and confidence in them. Therefore, a very important issue here is the need for these street

Despite the existence of barriers as a disruptive factor in cities, especially in major cities, it is considered a violation of Article 55 of the amended Municipalities Law. However, according to paragraph 2 of Article 55 of the Municipalities Law, barriers on public streets, occupation of sidewalks, and unauthorized use of public squares, parks, and gardens for commercial or residential purposes is prohibited. (This issue has been mentioned in previous sections.)

According to the laws of the country, one of the main responsibilities of municipalities is to organize the streets and passages of cities. Municipalities can take necessary actions through their officials or, if necessary, use law enforcement forces to remove existing obstacles and free up streets and spaces. These municipalities always take action against blocking and gathering of offenders, but due to the fact that sometimes custom is in conflict with the law in this matter, after a period of time has passed since the municipalities’ confrontation with offenders, they return to their initial state.

Courts are facing difficulties in dam cases; although the duties of municipalities are somewhat ambiguous and unclear, the violation of dam construction (in cases where damages are not proven) is evident, but the way judges handle these cases varies. The reason is clear; because the laws in this regard have many ambiguities and loopholes. Although municipalities take some actions, these actions, like the issue of embezzlement which is a crime, are not very responsive and after a while, everyone witnesses such violations in cities again. This shows that these actions are not fair, just, and in line with the customs of the regions. We must keep in mind that the law is a dry and lifeless text, and municipalities are in contact with the general public, so in addition to the law, other factors should also be considered in dealing with these cases.

It seems that in order to solve the issue of illegal dams in Iran, firstly the laws must be amended and strict and deterrent punishments must be enforced for those who build illegal dams that cause harm to others, as well as for the corrupt officials who use violence. Secondly, there is another fundamental problem, which is that municipalities often hire officials on a daily wage basis to oversee the construction of dams. This is a clear violation of the law and there is no logical or rational basis for this process. The construction of illegal dams is a legal issue that relates to citizens’ rights. It is not expected that all officials overseeing dams have a law degree and present themselves as legal analysts, but it is reasonable to expect that they have received the necessary legal and customary training and that their actions are first and foremost lawful, followed by wise and friendly, and based on compassion, rather than using fear as a means of control. Unfortunately, the process of hiring officials to oversee dams in municipalities seems more like hiring a