@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Jagadeesan, J.@mdashThe Petitioner/Sangam has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the Respondent herein to permit the members of the Petitioner/sangam to run their respective stalls on the pavement of Kathipara-Alandur Road, Guindy, within Corporation Division No. 140, on the basis of the order passed by the Respondent on 10.4.1990, permitting the members of the Petitioner/sangam to run stalls therein.
2. The Petitioner/sangam consists of 35 members. It is their case that pursuant to the order of the Respondent dated 10.4.1990, they occupied the pavement in Kathipara-Alandur Road. In the year 199S, when the Respondent felt the need of the pavement for the use of the public, steps were taken to remove the stalls of the members of the Petitioner/sangam. At this stage, the writ petition has been filed.
3. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/sangam that the members of the Petitioner/sangam have been permitted to occupy the pavements and when it has been found that the occupation of the members of the Petitioner/sangam will not be inconvenient for the traffic, there is absolutely no need for the Respondent to evict the members of the Petitioner/sangam.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent, it is stated that the members of the Petitioner/sangam are not the persons who were actually permitted to occupy the stalls. The present occupants are totally different, and as such, notice was issued u/s 222 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. When it was found by the Respondent that the pavement occupied by the members of the Petitioner/sangam causes hindrance to the public, it was decided to evict them. Hence, the members of the Petitioner/ sangam have been asked to vacate the places, failing which, action will be taken for forcible eviction.
5. It is not disputed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as on today, the volume of traffic as well as the volume of pedestrians using the road and the pavements in the disputed place, had increased many-fold. But however, he contends that the Respondent, having said no objection in the year 1990, cannot seek the eviction of the members of the Petitioner/sangam in 1995. I am unable to agree with the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/sangam. When there in no dispute that the Kathipara junction has become a heavy traffic junction, as it is part of the Grand South Trunk Road, also leading to the Air Port, part of the Highway of Bangalore, the Ring Road, which is a bye-pass to join the Highway leading to northern states, etc., it goes without saying that from all the four sides, the traffic is passing through that area. If that be so, there is nothing wrong on the part of the authorities to clear the encroachments or the pavements from the occupation of the members of the Petitioner/sangam for the use of the pedestrians and to preserve the road for the vehicular traffic. In the past one decade, there is definitely an increase in the volume of traffic as well as the population. Taking into consideration all these factors, in 1995 itself, the Respondent wanted to evict the members of the Petitioner/sangam.
6. Even though Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/sangam represents that the members of the Petitioner/sangam have been allotted the site, there is nothing on record to show that members of the Petitioner/sangam had obtained licence for occupying the place. When once there is no valid licence to occupy the place, the members of the Petitioner/sangam are nothing but trespassers and their occupation is unauthorised. Hence, the Respondent is entitled to evict the members of the Petitioner/sangam. In the absence of any right on the part of the members of the Petitioner/sangam to occupy the pavement, which is meant for the pedestrians, they are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held in the case of Tiruchirapalli Palporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam v. Commissioner, Corporation of Trichy (D.B.) 1998 (II) C.T.C. 610.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ sangam further contended that the platform is very wide and in spite of the occupation by the hawkers, the same can be used by pedestrians. I am unable to agree with the same, because, wherever the goods are exhibited for sale in the platforms by the hawkers, then, those interested in purchasing the same would gather around the goods. When 35 hawkers are in one platform, it can be presumed as to how much space is required for their occupation in order to spread over their articles and for those who gather around to negotiate and purchase. So, definitely, the occupation of the hawkers in the platform would cause inconvenience for the pedestrians, as they will be prevented from using the same.
8. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 12772 and 12773 of 1995 are closed.
