When the Sun sets and the shadows of darkness take over the day light, almost all the living beings - birds and animals, domestic as well as stray animals - get a place to lay on their head and pass the night peacefully. Even the snakes and reptiles can find their holes and stay therein without any threat or danger of being removed or thrown away. But that which is natural and usual in the scheme of nature is denied to human beings. After ensuring fundamental right to life, the citizens of this country are being denied the right to exist. Therefore questions arise - which type of society have we created and what do we desire to achieve? Is it obligatory upon the Courts of law to direct concerned executive authority to remove the hutments and clear the public road? Should the ghost of Dicey continue to haunt us and virtually rule our thinking? Is it not the obligatory duty of the Courts to be aware of the constitutional provisions and the aims and objects of the National Plans for socio-economic development?

2. To begin with - facts in brief. By an interim order the appellant-Surat Municipal Corporation has been directed by the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Surat, to remove the hutments situated on three sides of a plot in T. P. Scheme Final Plot No.139 near the Textile Market, Surat. On the land of the public road, hutments have been constructed and the hutment dwellers who came to Gujarat from other States to earn their livelihood are staying therein for last about ten years or more. The plaintiff is trying to develop the plot. He has made some construction and part of the same is let out also. However, he is not able to get the optimum return of the investment made by him. He contended that the Councillors of the Municipal Corporation and members of the Legislative Assembly were obstructing the Municipal Officers (i.e. Municipal Commissioner) and other Police Officers and were not allowing them to remove the hutments and the hutment dwellers who were trespassers on the land of the public road. These hutment dwellers had no right to remain on this land and the Municipal Corporation was duty bound to remove the encroachment. Therefore, he prayed that the State Government and the Municipal Corporation be directed to remove the encroachment and clear the public road.

3. The Municipal Corporation as well as the State Government contended that formerly the hutment dwellers were residing in the land owned by private individuals. Since the private individuals took over the possession of their lands these persons have been thrown on the road. They could not be disturbed as it was the policy of the Government to help the poor people. In substance, the defendants pleaded their inability to proceed to remove them but at the same time submitted that, attempts were being made to shift them to some other alternative place and therefore, requested that meanwhile no precipitate action be taken.

4. As held by the trial Court, the plaintiff was unable to complete his construction and sell the shops and apartments and, therefore, he was suffering financial loss and was also feeling inconveniences. On this basis, the trial Court found prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and directed the appellant-defendant-Municipal Corporation to clear the approach road and to remove the hutment dwellers within a period of two months from the date of the order. Hence this appeal.

5. The trial Court found that "for certain political ends and with a view to get votes from the hutment dwellers", defendants were not ready to take any action. The trial Court also observed that hutments were increasing day by day and, therefore, "some orders were necessary by the Court which is an independent body." The learned Judge quoted Dicey. The quotation reads :-

"That democracy is good institution and ruled by the people for the people but in this democratic institution of franchise, the ruling persons become weak as they are to