JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3 filed in the open Court, made part of the file. It appears that there are number of cases of unauthorised constructions/encroachment pending in various courts/authorities including this Court.

2. It is more than settled that the public property cannot be allowed to be encroached and the concerned authorities have to ensure constant vigilance on encroachment. No right can be claimed to encroach upon the public property. A Division Bench of this Court in case titled 'Court on its own motion vs. State of H.P. and others, (2015) 3 ILR(HP) 569 : 2015 (4) RCR (Civ) 111, while dealing with the issue of encroachment by the hawkers and others in Shimla, observed as under:

"14. It is well settled that the hawkers have no fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to carry on business at the place of their choice and convenience. The rights of hawkers, kiosk- users and vendors can never be absolute, but have to be limited and subservient to over all public interest.

15. In the Municipal Board, Man