JUDGMENT - SUJATA MANOHAR, J.:---This is a petition filed by Colaba Cuffe Parade Citizens Group. The 1st petitioner is the President of this Association. Petitioners 3 to 7 are the residents of Allana Road. Allana road is a small road in Colaba, Bombay which connects Colaba Causeway (Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road) with Merryweather Road. This road is 26' wide and has 6' wide pedestrian footpaths on each side. The road is named after one of the houses located on this road known as Allana House. It seems that since around 1986 in a garage in Allana House, every Friday afternoon prayers are held by Muslims. A number of people come to pray in the garage now converted into a mosque. A substantial number of these people are accommodated on Allana Road. Road blocks are placed on each end of Allana Road and a substantial portion of this road is covered with mats on which people stand for their prayers. 2. Every community undoubtedly has a right to pray and worship in accordance with its own religious practice. No one can or should have any objection to such prayers being offered. The problem, however, in the present case is caused by the fact that a public road which is meant for pedestrians and vehicular traffic is being converted, albeit partially, as a prayer ground every Friday. As a result the flow of vehicular traffic is obstructed and pedestrians are put to inconvenience. Holding prayers in this fashion has also caused considerable inconvenience to the residents living in houses along the road. The prayers are offered during the period 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Fridays. The actual period varies from time to time. But a portion of the road is blocked by placing wooden blocks and mats from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Fridays. And so is the footpath. This is the time when children return home from morning school and people return to their residence for meals. This is also a period during which housewives may return home from shopping. The blockage of a portion of the road and pedestrian footpath causes considerable inconvenience to the residents of the locality. 3. And so is the footpath. This is the time when children return home from morning school and people return to their residence for meals. This is also a period during which housewives may return home from shopping. The blockage of a portion of the road and pedestrian footpath causes considerable inconvenience to the residents of the locality. 3. In fact the third petitioner, who lives on a house on this road, had to undergo a very unpleasant experience on 4th April 1986 when he was bringing his aged father-in-law, recovering from a Heart-attack, from Northcote Nursing Home to his residence in a taxi. His using the road was resented by some of the people who had gathered for prayer. The petitioner No. 3 his wife and his aged father-in-law were mishandled and assaulted by these people. When a large number of people gather in this fashion it becomes difficult to control their behaviour and a few unruly persons can cause a lot of harassment and inconvenience to the residents of the locality. In these circumstances the present petition has been filed to compel the State Government, the Police and the Bombay Municipal Corporation to discharge their statutory obligation of keeping the road and the footpath free from obstruction. The petition has become necessary because despite complaints from the residents of the locality none of the concerned authorities have taken any action. 3-A. Under section 61(o) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 it is provided as follows : "61. It shall be incumbent on the Corporation to make adequate provision, by any means or measures which it is lawfully competent to them to use or to take, for each of the following matters, namely :--- x x x x (o) the removal of obstructions and projections in or upon streets, bridges and other public places." 4. Under section 312(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act it is provided as follows: "312. Under section 312(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act it is provided as follows: "312. (1) No person shall, except with the permission of the Commissioner under section 310 or 317, erect or set up any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or other structure or fixture in or upon any street or upon or over any open channel, drain, well or tank in any street so as to form an obstruction to, or an encroachment upon, or a projection over, or to occupy, any portion of such street, channel, drain, well or tank" 5. Section 308(1)(a) and section 313(1)(a) are also relevant and these are as follows : 308(1) No person shall erect, set up or place against or in front of any premises any structure or fixture, which will--- (a) overhang, jut or project into, or in any way encroach upon, or obstruct the safe or convenient passage of the public along any street" "313(1). No person shall, except with the written permission of the Commissioner--- (a) place or deposit upon any street or upon any open channel, drain or well in any street or in any public place any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale or other thing so as to form an obstruction thereto or encroachment thereon ;" 6. There is thus a statutory obligation cast upon the Bombay Municipal Corporation to remove obstructions on streets. The definition of a street under section 3(w) includes a footpath also over which pedestrians have a right of passage. 7. It was submitted by Mr. Madon learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 to 8 who are joined to this petition at their own instance and who are persons interested in holding such prayers that these sections do not deal with removal of persons who may be causing an obstruction. There is nothing in the language of section 61 sub-section (o) to warrant this interpretation. An obstruction can be caused as much by a congregation of people who have gathered in the street for prayer as by physical objects being placed on the road. Section 61(o) enjoins the Municipal Corporation to remove obstructions. Under section 312 also there is a prohibition on any person occupying a street These sections cover the present case. Section 308(1)(a) and 313 (10(a) undoubtedly deal only with obstruction caused by physical objects. Section 61(o) enjoins the Municipal Corporation to remove obstructions. Under section 312 also there is a prohibition on any person occupying a street These sections cover the present case. Section 308(1)(a) and 313 (10(a) undoubtedly deal only with obstruction caused by physical objects. But in the present case, in fact, road blocks and mats are placed to obstruct the street. 8. The Supreme Court, in the case of (Bombay Hawkers' Union and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others)1, reported in 1985(3) S.C.C. 528 , has observed (at page 531) that public streets, by their very nomenclature and definition, are meant for the use of the general public. They are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of private trade or business. If hawkers were to be conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold the society to ransom by squatting on the centre of busy thorough fares, thereby paralysing all civic life. Dealing with section 61(o) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, it said that the removal of obstructions upon public streets is an obligatory duty of the Corporation. The hawkers gather with their stalls constitute such obstruction. It is the obligatory duty of the Corporation to remove them. 9. In the case of (Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others)2, reported in (1985)3 S.C.C. page 545 (paragraph 43) the Supreme Court while dealing with pavement dwellers observed that footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. If a person puts any public property to a use for which it is not intended and is not authorised so to use it, he becomes a trespasser. It has said that public streets, of which pavements form a part, are primarily dedicated for the purpose of passage, and even the pedestrians have the limited right of using pavements for the purpose of passing and repassing. Referring to section 61(o) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act it said that the Corporation is under an obligation to remove obstructions upon public streets. In the present case the obstruction is caused by using a portion of the street as a prayer ground. It is equally an obstruction. The obligatory duty of the Bombay Municipal Corporation under section 61(o) extends to removal of such an obstruction also. 10. In the present case the obstruction is caused by using a portion of the street as a prayer ground. It is equally an obstruction. The obligatory duty of the Bombay Municipal Corporation under section 61(o) extends to removal of such an obstruction also. 10. Undoubtedly with the permission of the Commissioner, people at times are permitted to occupy a portion of a street for a temporary period if it does not cause serious public inconvenience as, for example, on the occasion of a fair or a festival. But this occupation has to be with the permission of the Commissioner, on conditions imposed by him and is for a very temporary period once a year or so. Such permission has to be an exception and not the rule. In the present case no such permission has been granted. What is more important, the obstruction is of a recurring nature, occurring every Friday. It cannot, therefore, be permitted. 11. Under section 67 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 it is provided as follows: "It shall be the duty of a Police Officer- (a) to regulate and control the traffic in the streets, to prevent obstructions therein and to the best of his ability, to prevent the infraction of any rule or order made under this Act or any other law in force for observance by the public in or near the streets;" 12. Under section 68 of the Bombay Police Act all persons are bound to conform to the reasonable directions of a Police Officer given in fulfilment of any of his duties under this Act. It is, therefore, the duty of the police to prevent any obstruction to traffic in the streets and to prevent infraction of any rules or orders made under the Act. In the present case there is a breach of these duties upon the police because the police has not taken any steps to remove the obstruction to vehicular traffic as also to pedestrian traffic by reason of the road being blocked in this manner. 13. Learned Advocates appearing for the State of Maharashtra and for the Bombay Municipal Corporation have happily stated that they will discharge their duties if so directed by the Court. In other words to discharge their statutory duties the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra seek shelter behind judicial robes. Their duty is clear and needs no judicial interpretation. Learned Advocates appearing for the State of Maharashtra and for the Bombay Municipal Corporation have happily stated that they will discharge their duties if so directed by the Court. In other words to discharge their statutory duties the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra seek shelter behind judicial robes. Their duty is clear and needs no judicial interpretation. However unpleasant the duty may be, they are bound to discharge it in public interest. It is unfortunate that for discharge of statutory obligations by a public authority, ordinary citizens are compelled to resort to litigation. 14. Every community has a right to worship in accordance with its own religious practice. But this cannot be done in violation of law or in a manner which contravenes statutory provisions which have been made for public benefit. Encroachment of a public street or a public footpath for religious purposes, whether it is for offering prayers or whether it is for constructing a temple, is equally contrary to the provisions of law and must be prevent. 15. In the premises the petition succeeds. The respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 are directed to keep Allana Road, Colaba, including its footpaths free from obstruction at all times. The third respondent is directed to aid respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the discharge of their duties. Rules is made absolute accordingly. Under an interim order dated 18th September, 1986 passed by the Appeal Court in Appeal No. 688/86 in this writ petition an interim arrangement was made in connection with the prayers being offered on Allana Road. As a special case, this arrangement will be allowed to continue for a period of three weeks from today. This may enable the devotees to make any alternate arrangements in accordance with law if they so desire. But even if alternate arrangements are not possible the interim arrangement not to continue beyond three weeks as it is contrary to public interest. I am informed by the petitioners that the congregation is now not confined merely to Allana Road but it also overflows on to and obstructs a portion of Merryweather Road and its footpath. The interim arrangement permitted to be continued as above shall be on condition that the partial obstruction is confined only to Allana Road and its footpath. I am informed by the petitioners that the congregation is now not confined merely to Allana Road but it also overflows on to and obstructs a portion of Merryweather Road and its footpath. The interim arrangement permitted to be continued as above shall be on condition that the partial obstruction is confined only to Allana Road and its footpath. No obstruction of any nature shall be caused on any portion of Merryweather road or its footpath or any other road. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to ensure that this arrangement is properly implemented. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay to the petitioners costs of petition. Petition allowed.