The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1670 of 2024 Arjun Jena and others …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Iswar Mohanty, A.S.C. (For the State-Opposite Parties as well as BMC) CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 30.01.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. This case was in the list of Court No.X. Today the assignment of Court No.X having been assigned to this Bench (Court No.II, Old Building) and on being mentioned by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the matter is taken up for admission. 3. Heard Mr. P.K. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Iswar Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties as well as Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner // 2 // with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) shall not be issued to direct the opp. parties to settle the places in favour of the petitioners for the purpose of carrying their business for the convenience of the general public at large as well as for their livelihood and further be pleased to restrain the Opp. Parties to dispossess the petitioners from peaceful possession of the places the for carrying construction thereon in the periphery area of Unit- IV daily market, Ward No.36 under Bhubaneswar till Municipal relocation/settle shop rooms and on perusal of causes shown if any or in any insufficient causes shown make the said rule absolute may pass such other order/orders as deemed just and proper.” their business and demolish Bhubaneswar Corporation, 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are shop/cabin owners carry their business at different places and earn their livelihood from such business. He further contended that it is out of the earnings from such shop rooms/cabins that the Petitioners sustain their entire family. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Petitioners are having their shop rooms at different places for more than decades. Recently, the Petitioners came across a public announcement which says that the Petitioners have to remove their shop rooms/cabins from their existing places. He further contended that although the authorities on being contacted have assured the Petitioners to provide them alternative places to carry on their business. In other words, an assurances is given by the authorities to relocate the Petitioners, // 3 // who are earning their livelihood through the shops which they have put up on public land, however, the same has not been acted upon and the Petitioners have not been given any option. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties in not relocating the Petitioners suitably and further continuing with their conduct of eviction, the Petitioners approached the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation by filing a representation on 3.1.2024 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. However, no decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioners as of now. Apprehending the action by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in the shape of eviction of Petitioners’ shop rooms/cabins from the existing places, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition to safeguard the right to earn livelihood. 6. Mr. Iswar Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties as well as Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioners, who are basically shop/cabin owners, have been occupying the public land. He further contended that they are creating public nuisance and hindering smooth traffic movement in Bhubaneswar city. Therefore, the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in coordination of other departments has started a eviction drive to remove all encroachments over the public land, particularly the land besides the main road of Bhubaneswar. In the aforesaid background, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that this Court should not interfere in the eviction drive of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation as the same is // 4 // being carried out keeping in view the larger public interest involved in the matter. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit as the Petitioners have no right over the land and to continue to occupy such Government land by putting their temporary shop/cabin. 7. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case as well as the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that no doubt, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India it is a fundamental right of every citizen to earn his livelihood. However, the same is subject to the law and order. Moreover, the temporary shops/cabins which have been put by the Petitioners are creating public nuisance and hindering smooth movement of traffic in the locality which is causing several road accidents. While observing the above, this Court is also conscious of the fact that the Petitioners are poor shop owners, who are deriving their earnings from the temporary shops/cabins. On perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the Petitioners have already approached the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation by filing a representation on 3.1.2024 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The same is stated to be pending before the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Opposite Party No.2. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 to the writ petition strictly in // 5 // accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the Petitioner. Further, it is directed that while considering the representation of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the case of the Petitioners for their relocation keeping in view any policy decision/scheme/resolution of the Government/Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, if any such mechanism is available for relocation of the Petitioners. The Petitioners are further directed to approach the Opposite Party No.2 within a week and they are also directed to cooperate with the Opposite Party No.2 for early resolution of the dispute. Any decision taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be also communicated to the Petitioners within a week from the date of taking such decision. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 03-Feb-2024 11:09:38