JUDGMENT R.S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.
1. The petitioner, Lila Dhar Joshi, has filed the present writ petition and seeks a writ of mandamus that the respondents, in effect, the administration at Nainital permit him to run the business of a general merchant on the roadside, nazul land, on the Haldwani Kathgodam road. The ptitioner does not point out any illegality or error manifest or otherwise on which he is entitled to enforce any rule or law in his favour by which the court could consider granting him a relief.
2. This is a simple case of the petitioner, and some others with him occupying the roadside of nazul land by payment of Toh Bazari and resisting eviction and, thus, claiming that they are entitled to be allotted a shop to run the business. A license to conduct Tah Bazari on the roadside does not confer any right on the petitioner. Tah Bazari by itself does not give the petitioner any right to any particular spot of land or a place on the basis of which he could claim that he is being evicted from any particular area. This aspect that no one has right to hold on to the roads or a pavement has beeh settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1985 SC 1206 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation. AIR 1986 SC ISO. roads are meant to be kept free for the sole purpose of passage and no other facilities even can be put on the roadsides, nor a statue of Mahatma Gandhi, is another aspect which the Supreme Court has held in re. Manglaur Municipality v. Mahadeoji, AIR 1965 SC 1147. The roads and streets are to be kept absolutely free for the purposes of which they are laid, that is, traffic and passage. Highway are meant to take traffic. Sidewalks are to be kept free for movement of pedestrians. These public places, highways, streets, road and sidewalks are not meant for squatters.
3. This is not a matter in which the High Court would like to interfere. The petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.