AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus DILBAGSINGH BALWANTSINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 24-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AHMED ABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
v. 
+--r 
DILBAGSINGH BALWANTSINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 24, 1992 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Act-Foot-path hawkers on public 
+--
streets--Obstructions to traffic and other public amenities-Removal by Cor-
poration under an approved scheme-Tactics of hawkers to thwert implemen-
c tation of scheme--lnterim injunction granted in their favour vacated. 
..,-
A mushroom growth of public street/footpath hawkers affected the 
JI( 
traffic and other public amenities. The Corporation (appell?nt) decided to 
remove the obstructions created by such hawkers, after giving them enough 
y 
opportunity. 
D 
The Corporation's action was challenged by way of writ petitions in 
the High Court. The High Court after hearing all the petitioners and 
following the judgments of this Court in Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay 
Municipal Corporation, [1985) 3 SCC 528 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay 
E 
Municipal Corporation, [1985) 3 SCC 544 directed the Corporation to 
evolve a scheme having regard to the overall local conditions in the area. 
Several special leave petitions were filed against the High Court's 
--,l-. 
judgment and this Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for 
consideration of the scheme. 
F 
On 22.4.87 the High Court held that the scheme framed by the 
Corporation deserved to be accepted subject to certain modifications. 
When some of the aggrieved persons approached this Court, this 
>' 
Court permitted the hawkers and other similarly placed traders to place 
G their difficulties before the High Court. 
On 7 .12.87 the High Court reconsidering the scheme, held that it was 
..... 
not necessary to further modify the scheme and ultimately the scheme was 
confirmed. 
H 
The respondents were small traders running their business in small 
~-
322 
MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. DILBAGSINGH BALWANTSINGH 
323 
shops. They were alleged to have made encroachments and were also A 
covered by the scheme. They filed several suits and withdrew them after 
the High Court gave its final verdict. 
On 1.10.88 the respondents filed a suit in the City Civil Court for 
directions and injunction. The appellant Corporation filed a reply to th~ 
notice of motion. The City Civil Court on 18.9.89 vacated the interim B 
injunction. 
The respondents thereupon filed an appeal in the High Court seek· 
ing interim injunction which was admitted granting interim injunction 
restraining the Corporation from removing or pulling down the business 
premises of the respondents. 
c 
The Corporation filed the present appeal questioning the High 
Court's order, contending that on earlier occasions the High Court dis· 
missed the appeals and that the encroachment was causing nuisance and 
inconvenience to the public and the Corporation was finding it extremely D 
difficult to implement the scheme which was considered and approved by 
the High Court in accordance with the directfons given by this Court. 
The respondents submitted that there was no objections to the 
implementation of the scheme; and that their shops did not in any way 
amount' to encroachment and their locations did not cause any incon-
E 
venience or nuisance. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.01. Several associations of hawkers, traders and larri-
gallawalas filed writ petitions and the Supreme Court directed the High F 
Court to consider the difficulties and finally the High Court approved the 
~ 
scheme subject to some modifications. [326C] 
1.02. In the instant case notice was issued and this Court also directed 
the appellant-Corporation to seek any other relief on the basis of the order G 
of this Court in the S.L.P.(Civil) No.5465/89, and the S.L.P. was adjourned to 
15.11.91 for enabling the Corporation to provide alternative suitable sites 
for the respondents according to the scheme. Thereafter the matter was 
adjourned several times at the request of the counsel. [326F ·G] 
1.03. On 4.2.92 a rejoinder was filed in which it is stated that the H 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Corporation had offered to the respondents hawking licenses etc. under 
the scheme but the respondents are not accepting the same and that the 
respondents were offered four alternative sites in Plot No. 174 of the Town 
Planning Scheme and that the same are suitable to carry on their busi-
nesses. [326G-327 A] 
B 
1.04. On 7.2.92 the respondents stated before this Court that they will 
choose any one of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.