Durga Prasad and others vs State of U.P. and others

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.—The eight petitioners, M/s. Durga Prasad. Noor Mohammad, Wahid Ali, Guddu, Iqbal, Risalat, Khiyali and Yusuf, have filed the present petition seeking reliefs that the respondents be restrained from evicting them on the demolition drive to clear the Bhojipura Road--Pilibhit--Bareilly Road. Town Rithora, district Bareilly. The contention of the petitioners is that they remain on the roadside by necessity. The petitioner No. 1 runs a shop to repair tyre punctures of heavy vehicles, motor cars and trucks. The petitioner No. 2 has been running a scrap dealer''s shop, a kabari. The petitioner No. 3 has a general merchandise shop. The petitioner No. 4 has a cycle spare parts shop. The petitioner No. 5, also, has a general merchant shop. The petitioner No. 6 is, also, running a cycle spare parts shop. The petitioner No. 7, also, has a spare parts shop for motor cycles and scooters. The petitioner No. 8 is running a spare parts shop for tractors.

The law is very clear that no one has a right to occupy a public road. The road is meant for traffic and for no other purpose. No person has any right to any particular spot on a roadside of a public road or street. Bombay Hawkers'' Union and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, . In fact, the law has been settled to such an extent that in a very old case, the Supreme Court has held that nothing can come on the roadside, neither facilities as a ''piau'' nor a library nor even a statue of Mahatma Gandhi Municipal Board, Manglaur Vs. Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj, In this context, the Supreme Court has held that footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets. The Supreme Court has further held that the existence of dwellings on the pavements is unquestionably a source of nuisance to the public, at least for the reason that they are denied the use of pavements for passing and repassing Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others,

In the circumstances, the petitioners have not made out any prima facie case for interference by the High Court.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.