L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE relief claimed in both the writ petitions is similar in nature. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

( 2 ) W. P. No. 15652 of 2002 is filed by jubilee Hills Labour Welfare Association, hyderabad, and its 33 Members. The petitioners contend that the Members, who are mostly from weaker sections, have been undertaking small business activities on the road margins of Road No. 1, Jubilee Hills, for the past 15 years and recently they were shifted by the Municipal Authorities to a place nearby Jubilee Hills Park. It is stated that they are doing their business availing the benefit under the Self Employment schemes sponsored by the Government through the agencies, such as, Setwin, lidcap, etc. They complain that in the name of beautification of the city, widening of the roads, etc. , they are sought to be evicted from the existing places of business. It is contended that they have been extended the electricity supply, telephone connections and are also being levied tax by the municipal Corporation itself. It is urged that the State is under obligation to provide livelihood to the petitioners and any step taken by the respondents constitutes violation of the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Ultimately, they seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to evict them from the existing places of business as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, read with the directive Principles of the State Policy contained therein. They seek the further relief of a direction to the respondents not to evict or otherwise interfere with the business of the petitioners or alternatively to accommodate them in proper places to enable them to do the business and eke out livelihood.

( 3 ) WITH almost similar allegations, except as regards the place of business, w. P. No. 21961 of 2002 is filed by 32 petitioners. These petitioners claim to have established small Units of business of various categories at Sri Krishnanagar, opposite to the Stadium.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents in both the writ petitions, it is stated that the petitioners have occupied the road margins and pavements and established their Units of business, causing congestion to the traffic. It is stated that mere extension of electricity supply, or collection of tax does not confer any right on the petitioners. The respondents contend that road margins are not meant to be used as places of business. It is also stated that the roads, abutting which the petitioners have established their businesses, are earmarked for measures to relieve the congestion of traffic and on account of the illegal occupation of the same by the petitioners, such a work is hampered.

( 5 ) SRI S. Ramchander Rao, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that having regard to the philosophy underlying the Constitution of India, it is the obligation of the State to ensure that its citizens are provided with adequate livelihood. He submits that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution can become meaningful if only the citizens are provided with adequate livelihood. He submits that the rights so conferred on the citizens cannot be permitted to be waived. Relying on certain observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180, the learned senior Counsel submits that persons who are eking out livelihood by doing business on road margins and pavements cannot be thrown out arbitrarily. He further submits that if the respondents are of the view that it is not feasible to continue the petitioners at the respective places, they are under obligation to formulate a Scheme to rehabilitate them. He has referred to various documents, such as, electricity bills, telephone bills, tax receipt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document