Back
2003 Supreme(All) 2829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.S. TRIPATHI, MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.
Shivala Footpath Sangathan Sansthan and Others - Appellants
Versus
District Magistrate and Others - Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 16503 of 2001
Decided On : 16-04-2003
For the Appellant : S.C. Tripathi.
For the Respondent: M.M.D. Agarwal, R.V. Singh, S.K. Om and S.C.
The main legal principle established is that the footpath is meant for public use and cannot be allotted for private business, based on the interpretation of legal provisions and previous case law.
Headnote:
Footpath - Public Use - The court held that the footpath is meant for public use by pedestrians and others, and cannot be allotted by the Nagar Nigam for setting up shops or private business. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the legal provisions and previous case law.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners set up shops on the public footpath, claiming allotments were made in their favor by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. The court found that the footpath is for public use and dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Nagar Nigam has no right to allot the footpath, and the Petitioners have no right to occupy the same, as it is meant for public use. The petition was dismissed based on previous case law and the principle of free-flow of traffic.
Issues: The issue was whether the Petitioners had the right to set up shops on the public footpath based on alleged allotments by the Nagar Nigam.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions and previous case law, emphasizing that the footpath is meant for public use and cannot be allotted for private business, obstructing the free-flow of traffic.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the footpath is for public use and cannot be allotted for setting up shops or private business.
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.M.D. Agarwal, Sri R.V. Singh and S.K. Om for the Respondents.
2. The Petitioners set up shops on the public pattri (footpath). They have alleged that allotments were made in their favour for use of the footpath by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur and they are paying tehbazari.
3. In our opinion, the Nagar Nigam has no right to allot the footpath, and Petitioners have no right to occupy the same. The footpath is for public use by pedestrians and others. In fact, the Petitioners' own case, Shivala Footpath Sangathan Sansthan v. Kanpur Mahapalika 1987 UPLBEC 413, which is an identical case, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ata Mohd., AIR 1980 SC 1785, has also taken the same view.
4. In our opinion, footpath and public pattri cannot be given by the Nagar Nigam to anyone to set up shops or for private business. The free-flow of the traffic will be obstructed and hampered thereby, which cannot be permitted.
5. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
