JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J.
1. The petitioners Atique Ahmad and eighteen others, have filed the present writ petition complaining that the enhanced rent which is being collected from them of shops which had been allotted by the Nagar Panchayat, Naraini, Banda, is illegal. The facts of the present case are that the Nagar Panchayat, Naraini, had constructed shops on the roadside of Atarra road. These shops had been demolished by the Public Works Department. The Nagar Panchayat claimed its right that the shops could be constructed and were rightly constructed at the place so constructed. The Public Works Department asserted that the shops on the roadside could not be permitted and were an encroachment. Thus, there were issues between the Nagar Panchayat, as a local body and the Public Works Department, on behalf of the State. These issues are highlighted on record in an application which was given by some of the petitioners to the District Magistrate, Banda (Annexure-6).
2. At this stage, the Court may mention that under the amended Constitution by virtue of Article 243W, when local self government has come to stay and the existence of it became a constitutional obligation, it did not mean that Nagar Panchayat, which is an ingredient of local self government, could take the law into its hands. In reference to the Nagar Panchayat and Article 243W, read with the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution, the entry reads "Urban planning including town planning." By now, it is clear on what the concept of a public street or road is. To preserve a town, there has got to be planning according to the discipline provided by law for urban planning. The Nagar Panchayat is obliged to conform to this discipline. Democracy in local self government does not mean anarchy. The Nagar Panchayat cannot destroy a town with haphazard planning. In these circumstances, the Public Works Department was right in keeping the road clear from obstructions by demolishing the unauthorised shops.
illegally occupying the road. Long ago, the Supreme Court declared that a public street or a public road is meant for passage and for no other. It was also held that nothing may obstruct a roadside ; neither a 'plao', library or a statue of Mahatma Gandhi. Even facilities cannot be put on the roadside. Manglaur Municipality v. Mahadeoji, AIR 1965 SC 1147.
3. The petitioners were the allottees of shops, constructed illegally by the Nagar Panchayat and they entered into an agreement with the Nagar Panchayat to receive a licence to occupy the roadside with their shops. The construction of the shops on the roadside was illegal. The contract is void.
4. Subsequently, when the Public Works Department had demolished the shops, the record shows (Annexure 3) that there is a matter pending at the Consumer Forum. From a reading of the communication from the Consumer Forum to the Chairman. Nagar Panchayat, it appears that a receiver had been appointed to collect the scheduled rent as also the increased rent. The receiver had been given directions that the rent may be collected from all the shop-keepers. In this communication, there is an endorsement dated 7 February, 1997.
5. In the circumstances, the petitioners can receive no relief from this Court on a contract which was void, as the roadside which they occupied with their shops, the occupation itself is illegal.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that enough security lies with the Nagar Panchayat for the adjustment of the rent as may be due. This argument may be addressed before the Consumer Forum.
7. This petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.