SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(AP) 388

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
Karanam Manjunath
Versus
The District Collector, Kurnool & Others
Writ Petition No.7636 of 2010
Date of Judgment : 30-04-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:G. Jagadeeshwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: G.P. for Revenue.

Headnote:A.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994, Sections 98 and 94 - Constitution of India, Article 19 (1)(g) and 19 (6) – Occupier of road laid down by Gram Pancchayath cannot be heard to seek issuance a writ restraining the Gram Panchayath from evicting them which in effect affect the users of the road, nor can it direct alternative accommodation for squatters in a public places.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners, who are six in number, are petty business people engaged in small vocations like running a tailor shop, beedi shop, vegetable shop, cycle repair shop etc. Their predecessors occupied a portion of Gram Panchayat road in Jonnagiri Village and constructed small bunks/kiosks. They also allege that they obtained electricity connection from the concerned Electricity Distribution Company and they also say that they are paying ground rent to Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat, third respondent herein, issued notice to petitioners to remove their bunks and further informing them if they failed to do so on or before 12.04.2010, Gram Panchayat will remove those shops. The petitioners contend that their occupation of the Gram Panchayat land is no way causing obstruction to the users of the road, that if their bunks are removed, they would suffer hardship and that Gram Panchayat having permitted them to set up the bunks and having accepted the ground rent, cannot be permitted to remove the bunks.

Counsel for petitioners made submissions reiterating the contentions as above. Initially when he made submissions on 07.04.2010, he did not make any effort to demonstrate the right of the petitioners that can be enforced in exercise of Mandamus jurisdiction of this Court. When the Court pointed out the law of streets, expounded by Supreme Court in Sodan Singh v New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1989 SC 1988, he sought time and on 13.04.2010, he relies on the said Judgment and submits that there is no obstruction for users of the road, and unless and until alternative accommodation is shown, the petitioners cannot be evicted. Per contra, standing counsel for third respondent Panchayat submits that at present the bunks of the petitioners are situated on the road leading to Gram Panchayat/Village and causing obstruction to the users of the road.

Petitioners have filed permission letters given by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat enabling petitioners or their predecessors to raise temporary constructions for livelihood. They also annexed the xerox copies of the tax receipts, evidencing payment of ground rent to the Gram Panchayat. The receipt of Electricity Distribution Company in respect of one petitioner is also filed. Petitioners, however, do not dispute that all of them have occupied Gram Panchayat road. They only contend that if they are removed from the place, they would deprive their livelihood and suffer hardship.

The question involved in this writ petition is a right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India. The right of a citizen to carry on trade on the street in tune with Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) is recognised. The Supreme Court in Sodan Singh (supra), Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v Nawab Khan AIR 1997 SC 152 and various other Judgments of Supreme Court, considered various aspects of the rights and restrictions subject to which such right can be enjoyed. Following the Judgments in Secunderabad Bunks (Kiosks) Owners Association v Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad AIR 1994 AP 35, and Slum Dwellers Welfare Association v District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (2002) Suppl (1) ALD 697 (DB), this Court in an unreported Judgment, dated 30.04.2004, in W.P.No.15413 of 1994 (Venkatesh v M.C.H., Hyderabad), reiterated the law as under.

Insofar as the submission that a citizen has right to carry on business on the street is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with the principle of law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sodan Singh (supra). However, the right to carry on business on the street either by moving from one place to another, squatting at one particular place is concerned, it is also well settled that no citizen can cause obstruction to the traffic or pedestrians because the roads and pathways are essentially meant for to pass and re-pass and use for conveyance. A reference may be made to judgment of a Division Bench of thi








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top