D.L. MEHTA, J.-This revision petition is directed against the order dated, 3rd August 1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

2. To understand the controversy between the parties it is necessary to narrate some facts. Plaintiffs have come with a case that they are doing business for the last 60 years or so on the street. In the cases of four plaintiffs learned District Judge has held that they are doing business for the last 30 years or so. In cases of the remaining two plaintiffs it has been held that they are of a very recent origin. Mr. Karnani, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that street trading being a fundamental right has to be made available to the citizens subject to the provisions of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. He submits that it is within the domain of the State to make any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. However, he further submits that if the State fails to make any law or rules, the Court has ample power to pass necessary orders which may be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Mr. Hanuman Choudhary relies upon the doctrine of rule of law propounded by dice and submits that the rule of law is that no one can be allowed to occupy the streets which may lead to the inconvenience of the public. He further submits that the administrative actions may be within the domain of judicial review, but the government actions cannot be within the domain of judicial review and this order of the Municipality does not fall within the doman of administrative action but falls within the domain of government action. Mr. Choudhary tried to emphasize the continental comparative law while distinguishing the word administrative action and Government action. It is not necessary for me to determine the scope of judicial review in the instant case, though, there may be a scope of discussion and interpretation of the word administrative action and government action.

4. In the instant case, I agree with the view of Mr. Karnani to this extent that street trading is a fundamental right and every citizen has a right of street trading within the four corners of Article 19 Cl. (6). Mr. Choudhary appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners tries to define the word street trading but the street trading is only limited to the moving Thelas and other ancillary acts sitting without a roof for some time on a corner of the street to make the necessities of the consumer public available to them at their home. In the instant case, we are dealing with the case of Thadis Semi Permanently placed on the streets. Mr. Choudhary has invited my attention to some provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, particularly Sections 163,165,191,192,193 and 198. Mr. Choudhary submits that under section 163 the Board may by order in writing temporarily close any street to traffic for repair or in order to carry out any work connected with the drainage, water supply or for any of the purposes of this Act. Mr. Choudhary emphasized the word for any purposes of this Act, as used in section 163 of the Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959, and submits that the word any purpose of this Act is so wide enough that to regulate the traffic the street can be closed and thereby, by implication, the trading on the street, particularly, by Thadi holders who have permanently placed it, can be stopped totally as the word regulate may be interpreted to include total prohibition.

5. Mr. Choudhary further submits that under section 165, Municipality will have to prescribe a line on either side or both the sides of the public street within the Municipality a.05.from time to time, prescribe a fresh line in substitution of any line so prescribed. Mr. Choudhary emphasised that once the line is prescribed or the prescribed line is amended or substituted naturally, there cannot be any permanent structure within the prescribed line and, ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document