Syed Yousha Hyder and Another vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Others

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J.—After hearing the teamed counsel for the parties and considering the statements and averments made in the petition, we are of the view that no market, either on daily or weekly basis, can be allowed to run encroaching the public road, so much so to create inconvenience to the members of the public as to its use as thoroughfare. We think that the municipal authority would owe a duty to the public at large to see that for running a market, a public road cannot be utilized and for this purpose a specific place has to be identified. We accordingly direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take lawful steps for preventing the market being organized on weekly basis or daily basis on the public street and road. We are told that the weekly market is being run for a considerable time. We, therefore, direct that public awareness for not using public road for holding a market shall be created. By public announcement system all the people, who are using such market or who are occupying the public street for vending purpose, should be informed that this market should not be allowed to run on occupying public street or any place creating inconvenience to the members of the public at large. We also direct respondent No. 4 to help respondent No. 1 so that the market shall not take place on the street or public road. For this purpose, if necessary, the municipal authorities shall identify a suitable spot for holding this weekly market. Our intention is very clear that public road and street shall be kept free from all encroachments or obstacles of any kind. Therefore, respondent No. 4 shall bear in mind that the wishes of this Court, and as such this authority shall help the Municipal Corporation to implement this order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, P.I.L.M.P. No. 547 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief, stands closed.