Pramod Tiwari vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar and others

Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.—The petitioner Sri Pramod Tiwari, had a licence for Tehbazari on the side-walk of Choori Market, Shivala Road. Kanpur Nagar. He says that he had been allotted site Chak No. 37 and was carrying on a petty shop in the name of Sadhana Chappals since 1990.

It is on record that there was an anti-encroachment drive for removal of unauthorised constructions and in this anti- encroachment drive when the road was cleared, the petitioner''s shop was also damaged and demolished. The petitioner contends that he received a licence again to conduct business on the roads, but he is not being permitted to open the shop. The petitioner accepts that the licence is valid till 31st March. 1999. Thus, the petitioner says that a writ be issued to the respondents that the petitioner be given an alternate site on the side walk of the same road.

The prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted nor can a writ be issued to the respondents that the petitioner should occupy the sidewalk of a public road or in the alternative, he may be allotted another site. On this, the law is very clear that the roads are meant for traffic only and for no other purpose, even facilities cannot be put on the road, Municipal Board, Manglaur Vs. Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj, . There can be no fundamental right to carry on business on the public road. Bombay Hawkers'' Union and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, . The petitioner only had a licence, at best like a hawker. The petitioner was not entitled to any particular spot on the road. Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, .

In the circumstances, if the road is being cleared for smoother and better traffic, which is the purpose for a road, a writ cannot be issued to encourage encroachment. The petition, is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.