A person who suffers special damage or inconvenience due to an obstruction on a public road has locus standi to file a writ petition seeking removal of the obstruction.

1. IN this writ petition, the petitioner asked for writs and/or directions commanding the respondents to remove the block-age of passage over the Diamond Harbour Road and to remove the obstructions to egress from and ingress into premises No. 23a/29n/2 Diamond harbour Road, Calcutta - 53 and also commanding the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 not to commit the said nuisance and/or obstruction.

2. THE petitioner is the owner of premises No. 23a/29n/2,diamond Harbour road, Calcutta and the petitioner has also been residing in the said premises. The case of the petitioner is that the land comprising the said premises is about 3 cottahs 8 chittaks and on the said land there is a big tiled and asbestos roof shed in the front portion lacing the Diamond Harbour Road and the remaining structure is situated at the back portion of the said tiled shed. The petitioner granted licence to the younger brother of the petitioner's husband to run a hotel in the said front tiled shed room and the said brother used to run the hotel. After the death of the said brother, the petitioner allowed his widow to continue fine said hotel in the aforesaid room as a licensee of the petitioner. The said widow thereafter closed down the said business and handed over the possession of the said room to the petitioner and at the present moment the petitioner is in possession ctf the said front tiled room and also the back portion of the premises. The petition contends that after the closure of the said hotel the employees of the said hotel illegally and wrongfully raised bamboo structures with tarpaulin an the Diamond Harbour Road just in front of tha said front room of the petitioner. The said employees by making such structures on the Diamond Harbour road in front of the said tiled shed room of the petitioner have completely blocked the said front portion and they have been also obstructing egress from and ingress into the said front room of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that at the present moment the petitioner and the members of the family cannot enter the front room and or the other portion of the premises through the main road, but in order to go inside the premises the petitioner and the members of the family are using a small side entrance. The petitioner further contends that the petitioner made a number of diaries in the New alipore Police Station on 11th Ocotber, 1980, 12th October, 1980 and the petitioner also made an application under section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned executive Magistrate, Alipore being m. P. Case No. 1846 of 1980 and the learned Magistrate was also pleased to direct the Officer-in-charge, New Alipore Police station, to enquire and report and to see that no breach of peace would take place and the persons named in the petition under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not indulge in any illegal activities. The petitioner contends that the said order of the learned Magistrate also was served on the Officer-in-charge of New alipore Police Station, but no effective step or action has been taken and the said blockage and nuisance are continuing as before. The petitioner also contends that the petitioner "wrote letters to the Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta on llth November, 1980 and 19th December, 1980 inviting his attention to the aforesaid commission of nuisance and blockage of the road, but the said respondent has also not taken any step to remove the obstruction. Having failed in all the attempts to get the said obstruction and nuisance rembved, the petitioner has moved the instant writ petition praying for appropriate writ or directions commanding the respondents to remove the said obstacles and nuisance and restraining the said respondents nos. 4 to 14 who were the employees of the said licensee of the petitioner from indulging into the aforesaid illegal activities.

An affidavit-in-oppositioh on behalf of respondent no. 1, namely, the commission of the Corpor