http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil)  16915-16919 of 2002

PETITIONER: Nanha Ram & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/04/2004

BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

G.P. MATHUR,J.  

       These petitions by special leave have been preferred against the  judgment and order dated 22.4.2002 of a Division Bench of the High Court  of Punjab and Haryana.

2.      The petitioners are carrying on business of selling fruits and  vegetables on their ’rehries’ (hand carts) in the grain market in Sector 26 in  the city of Chandigarh.   It appears that steps were taken to remove them  from the grain market.   At that stage they filed the writ petitions praying  that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the respondents from  removing them from grain market in Sector 26 without allotting them  alternative sites.   A further prayer was made that the respondents be  directed to allot the petitioners alternative sites from where they may carry  on their business.   Initially, an interim order was passed by a learned Single  Judge in favour of the petitioners, but ultimately the writ petitions were  dismissed by a Division Bench relying upon two earlier decisions rendered  in similar writ petitions.    

3.      In exercise of powers conferred by Sections 188 and 199 of Punjab  Municipal Act, 1911, the Chandigarh Administration has framed Bye-laws  known as Chandigarh Hand Cart (Control & Regulation) Bye-laws, 1976.   Bye-law No.8 provides that no person shall use a handcart contrary to the  Bye-laws.   It is an admitted position that the petitioners have not been  granted any licence and, therefore, they do not have any legal right to carry  on business in the grain market in Sector 26.   Having regard to the aforesaid  legal position and the decisions rendered in the earlier writ petitions, the  Division Bench was of the opinion that no writ of mandamus, as prayed for  by the petitioners, can be issued in their favour.

4.      We have heard one of the petitioners in person and have given our  careful consideration to the material on record.   This being the admitted  position that the petitioners do not have a licence in their favour, we think,   the High Court committed no error in declining to issue a writ of mandamus,  as prayed for by the writ petitioners.   However, having regard to the facts  and circumstances of the case, the special leave petitions are disposed of  with a direction to Chandigarh Administration to consider the case of the  writ petitioners sympathetically as and when it decides to grant fresh  licences either for the grain market in Sector 26 or for any other market.