The court held that the authorities were not required to provide notice before removing encroachments on road margins and footpaths by petty vendors, as such encroachments obstructed the free flow of vehicular traffic and pedestrians.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. All the petitioners in these 3 writ petitions are similarly situated and as common contentions and common questions of law are involved, they are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in W. P. No. 4702 of 1998 states that they are engaged in their respective business viz. , Sugarcane Juice, foot wear, clothing toys, Housiery, Cutlery, bangles, Chat Bandar, Readymade garments etc. , by erecting small kiosks in the open space on the road margins between the Charminar Police Station and apseb Office at Charminar. Some of the petitioners are doing their business on the road leading from Guljar House to charminar and they say that their business is not affecting free flow of traffic.

( 3 ) THE petitioners in W. P. No. 4073 of 1998 are also similarly situated petty vendors doing the business on the pavements and road margins.

( 4 ) THE petitioners in W. P. No. 13824 of 1998 states that they are very poor and engaged in the business of polishing of artificial ornaments.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY all the petitioners occupied the road margins and doing their temporary businesses obstructing the traffic.

( 6 ) COUNTER has been filed on behalf of the assistant Commissioner of Police, Traffic, stating that the traffic police is implementing the Section 39 of C. P. Act on the persons setting up unauthorised kiosks, hawkers/push cart vendors on foot path and roads and open places in obstructive way for free flow of vehicular traffic/ pedestrains. Except implementing the above Act, the traffic police have nothing to do with case of the petitioners. It is also further stated that time and again, the High court has taken serious note of the functioning of traffic police and other department viz. , MCH, RTC and APSEB etc. , which are collectively responsible for the free flow of the traffic and issued notices in suo motu contempt case No. 101 of 1996 (W. P. No. 4795 of 1996) and on 23-2-1996 passed orders directing the traffic police and other departments to take steps for the smooth flow of the traffic. Accordingly, the mch authorities, on 26-4-1997 conducted a special drive against removal of Hawkers- push cart vendors who have occupied the foot paths on the road margins and open space from the Charminar Monument to madina Hotel and Madina Hotel to the high Court up to City college and cleared all the encroachments including Debbas errected on the roads, foot paths etc. , and since then no hawkers push cart vendors have been allowed to reappear on the foot paths or on the road margin and open space in front of the Charminar law and order police station.

( 7 ) BUT the petitioners who are all the encroacher under the guise of the Interim directions of this Court are again making an attempt to occupy the road margin, foot path and obstructing vehiculer traffic. As a matter of fact the petitioners have been evicted on 26-4-1997. But some of them again occupied foot path and thereby causing lot of inconvenience to the pedestrians as the foot paths are very small and there is no place for pedestrians to walk. It is further submitted, that some of the petitioners under the guise of the interim orders of this Court carrying on the business and causing obstructions to the pedestrians which is main road from charminar to Madina and heavy movement of vehicular traffic in both the directions and also heavy movement of the pedestrians as the Charminar is a historic one, the visitors movements are also heavy and APSEB Office, Charminar L and O PS. , are located and the vehicles are being parked in the open space opposite to the charminar and if the hawkers are allowed to occupy the foot path and open space and road margin to do their business it will cause obstruction to free flow of the traffic and pedestrians. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no right much so any fundamental right. Admittedly, t