( 1 ) DRAFT amendment is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioner before this Court claims to be the Organization of self-employed workers (hereinafter referred to as the Organization ). At the time of the hearing of the petition on 1st May, 2003, Mr. Pahwa had submitted the above referred amendment. Alongwith the amendment is the list of persons who, according to the petitioner, are the members of the Organization. It is the claim that the members of the Organization are small business people who run their business from small stalls placed on the public roads of the city of Bhavnagar. A long time dispute as to the right of the said members to carry on business on the public roads is pending before this Court. Earlier, the Organization had filed Special Civil Application No. 4838/1982 for the benefit of its members and some individuals also preferred Special Civil Application No. 5485/1982. The said petitions were amicably settled. Under the said settlement, the respondent - Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) (then Bhavnagar Municipality) agreed to move all such members to particular places indicated in the settlement and to allow them to occupy such place and to carry on their business. Pursuant to the said settlement, on 13th January, 1983, the petitions were disposed of as withdrawn. It appears that the said settlement was not acted upon and the members of the Organization have continued to have their business at the respective places. However, the Corporation appears to have taken up the task of removing encroachment from the roads to clear the roads for smooth flow of traffic and to provide for footpaths for pedestrians. Feeling aggrieved, the Organization has filed Special Civil Application No. 10818/2001 and some individuals also have filed Special Civil Application No. 5657/2001. Those two petitions are admitted to final hearing. Pending those petitions, this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) under order dated 27th September, 2002, directed that "the authority shall give opportunity of hearing before taking decision of evicting or removing the petitioners from the land in question. However, this order would not mean that the petitioners have any statutory right over the land in question to continue with the occupation. " Pursuant to the above order, the Organization was given opportunity of hearing. Under order dated 16th January, 2003, the Commissioner decided that it was not possible to accede to the request of the Organization. The city roads were required to be widened earnestly and footpaths were required to be cleared of encroachment. Feeling aggrieved, the Organization has preferred the present petition.

( 3 ) AT the outset, Mr. Pahwa has submitted that the Organization is not particular about continuance of its members at their present place. However, according to Mr. Pahwa, the said members have a fundamental right to carry on business on the roads and pavements. It is, therefore, the duty of the Corporation to provide alternative place to such members where they can establish and carry on their business. Mr. Pahwa has also submitted that earlier the matter was settled as recorded hereinabove. The Corporation is bound to respect the said settlement and act accordingly. According to Mr. Pahwa, the Corporation is under obligation to offer space for business to the members of the Organization as was agreed in the year 1982 under the aforesaid settlement.

( 4 ) MR. PAHWA has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of SAUDAN SINGH V/s. N. D. M. C. AND ORS. [jt 1992 (2) S. C. 190]. The Honble Court referred to the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in the matter of SODAN SINGH AND ORS. V/s. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND ORS. [ (1989) 4 S. C. C. 155]. In the said judgment, the Constitution Bench held that ". . . the right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19 (1) (g) of the