RAVI S. DHAVAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a strange case of a local body, the Town Area Committee, Naraini, Banda, filing a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order, in effect, of the State of Uttar Pradesh, when it was asked not to construct shops on the roadside as it is against the law. The Town Area Committee instead of cleaning up the road so that it is available without obstruction for the purpose for which it is laid, that is, for passage or highway traffic saw arrangements to block and construct the Naraini Uttara Marg, by constructing temporary kiosks, Gumtis and shops. Not only this, thereafter, the Town Area Committee proceeded to make the constructions permanent.

( 2 ) THIS met with resistance from the Superintendent of Police, Banda, who tried to persuade the Town Area Committee that the constructions are on the side of the road and this would affect (a) the passage, (b) the Police Station behind it and (c) a Fire Brigade Station. The Town Area Committee would hear none of the objections from the local administration and took up a defence that it had obtained the sanction of the Collector, Banda, to construct the shops. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Banda, the latter has even gone to the extent of submitting that the Collector, Banda, did not have power to sanction the unauthorised construction of shops on nazul land and on the roadside.

( 3 ) THE Court has heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and examined the record of the writ petition, which has been replied by a counter affidavit, but not controverted by a rejoinder affidavit from the Town Area Committee.

( 4 ) THIS Court is satisfied that what the Superintendent of Police, Banda, submits is correct. A road is meant for passage only and for no other purpose. A road and with it the sidewalk, patri or roadside has its conforming use for the purpose for which it has been laid out. More than thirty years ago the Supreme Court has settled this matter that on a road or a roadside there can neither be obstructions in the nature of shops, nor facilities not even a statute of Mahatma Gandhi, Mangalore Municipality v. Mahadeoji, AIR 1965 SC 1147. The principle that a road is to be kept open for passage only and for no other purpose has been reiterated by the Supreme Court later inseveral cases, Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1985 SC 1206; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. What is vested in the Municipality by law as a street and if the Municipality put the street to any other user than for which it was intended, the State as its owner, is entitled to intervene and maintain an action and to get any person in illegal occupation evicted State of U. P. v. Ata Mohd, AIR 1980 SC 1785.

( 5 ) TODAY there should be no doubt in the mind of any public authority, local body, State Government or the Government of India that the roads of the nation are to be kept absolutely free without obstructions and only for the purpose for which a road or a highway has been carved out. Obstructing public roads, the like of which the Town Area Committee is doing is the negation of planning.

( 6 ) ALONG with the counter affidavit, the Superintendent of Police, Banda, has placed before the Court a general circular which has been circulated to the District Officers of the State to prevent constructions of public roads and strictly monitor control of unauthorised constructions on public roads. Initially this circular had been issued in 1945. The circular was reiterated by a Government Order No. 6169-LO/xxiii-PWD, dated 21/12/1950, Annexure CA-I, and this provides dimensions for national and provincial highways, major district roads, other district roads, village roads, cement concrete tracks, motor roads (in hills), bridle roads (in hills ). The circular cautions all district administrations to ensure that no construction is allo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document