( 1 ) IN these four petitions in all 74 individual cabinshop-owners are affected by the action of the respondents. According to the petitioners they have been removed from the place of their business otherwise than in accordance with law and in violation of their fundamental right to life under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. In Special Civil Application No. 4019 of 1987 an association called Nehru Marg Cabin Association has filed the petition in respect of 43 members belonging to their association. In other three petitions different individuals have filed the petitions. In all they are 31 in number The petitioners have their cabins on different roads in the town of Modasa district Sabarkantha. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Municipality and other respondents. Hence the petition. By interim relief it was directed that the petitioners be not restrained from putting up their cabins and carrying on their business at the places where they were carrying on the business immediately prior to their removal. The grievance of the petitioners is that they cannot be thrown away from the places of their business except in accordance with law and the minimum that is expected of the respondent-Authorities is to afford an opportunity of being heard to them before taking any precipitate action.

( 2 ) IT appears that these cabin holders are carrying on their business on pavements or foot-paths for last about ten to fifteen years. May be that some of them might be carrying on their business for last few years only. But the fact remains that they are carrying on the business for quite some time. It is nobodys case that they are doing any illegal activity or that they are committing any crime. Since they are unable to afford good space in a marketing centre and since they want to live an honest living by putting their hard labour they are doing the business in kacha sheds and on foot-paths. From the facts narrated in the petition it appears that they had been removed all of a sudden by employing police force and that too without giving any reasonable notice or time. In short the grievance of the petitioners is that when they are eking out their livelihood by pursuing honest way of life and so long as they do not cause any injury to others they should not be removed from the place of their business

( 3 ) IN respect of the refugees from Pakistan the Government has in fact issued a circular dated 17/06/1976 Therein directions to the local authorities have been given to the effect that without making alternative arrangements these refugees who are carrying on their business in cabins and gallas should not be removed. Some of the petitioners are in fact refugees and as averred in the petition they have been allotted the space by the local authorities on that basis only. Be that as it may. There is no reason why the same treatment should not be given by the Government to all the citizens. After forty years of partition of the country and migration by these people from across Pakistan border and their entry in this country it would not be proper to call them refugees. Now they are also citizens of this country. If the Government has thought it fit not to remove these persons from the places of their business unless alternative arrangement is made there is no reason why the same treatment should not be given to other citizens whose plight is in no way better than these people who have migrated from Pakistan. Therefore all the cabin holders are similarly situated and all of them from one class only. Therefore whether they are refugees from Pakistan or not all of them are required to be given similar treatment.

( 4 ) THE question arises as to whether the petitioners who according to the respondents are trespassers are entitled to be heard before they are removed from the places encroached upon by them. Be it noted that they have not encroached upon public places with an intention or object to commit an of