Gokal Chand Mital ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition with the prayer that respondents No. 3 and 4 or their employees, associates and agents be restrainedfrom carrying on the business activity in front of shop No. 455, Katramohan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-firm is carrying on its business of retail, of ladiesgarments at 455, Chandni Chowk, Delhi under the name and style ofm/s Hazari Lal Jain and Bros. , and Shri Lal Chand Jain and Shri Lalit Mohanjain are the partners of the aforesaid concern. It is alleged in the petitionthat responnents 3 and 4 who do not hold any Tehbazari and/or any licencefrom respondent No. 1/municipal Corporation of Delhi, have started blocking the entire entrance to the shop of the petitioner for about last 1/2 monthsby placing two tables starting from the corner of the foot-path which in itselfis 10 X 12 wide. The Approximate size of each table is 6 x4 . Respondentsno. 3 and 4 place ready-made shirts on the said tables and sell them. . Therespondents No. 3 and 4 with the help of their servants, associates and employees start functioning at 10 a. m. in the morning and function till late inthe night. The respondents 3 and 4 s. activities are causing great inconvenience for the customers to pass and repass through the said passage andto enter the shop of the petitioners. ( 3 ). It is also alleged in the petition that the business activities ofrespondents 3 and 4 which are being carried out in totally unauthorisedmanner have become a cause of big public nuisance and obstruction. Publicat large are facing great inconvenience on that account. The petitioner hasbrought to our notice Sections 321,411 and 420. The same are reproducedas under:-- "section 321 : (1) No person shall, except with the permission of the Commissioner and on payment of such fee as he in eachcase thinks fit, place or deposits upon any street, or upon any openchannel, drain or well in any street or upon any public place anystall, chair, branch, box, ladder, bale or other thing whatsoeverso as to form an obstruction thereto or encroachment thereon. (2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) applies to Building materials. " "sec. 411 (1 ). (2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) applies to Building materials. " "sec. 411 (1 ). No animal or article shall be sold or exposedfor sale within a distance of one hundred yards of any Municipal market or licenced private market without the permission ofthe Commissioner. (2) Any person contravening the provisions of Sub-section (1) and any animal or article exposed for sale by such person maybe summarily removed under the orders of Commissioner or anyofficer or employee of the Corporation appointed by him in thisbehalf". "sec. 420. No person shall without or otherwise than inconformity with the terms of a licence granted by the Commissionerin this behalf; (a) hawk or expose for sale in any place any articlewhatsoever whether it be for human consumption ornot; (b) use in any place his skill in any handicraft or for rendering services, to and for the convenience of the public forthe purposes of gain or making a Jiving. " ( 4 ). It is submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 are carrying on theirbusiness in totally illegal and irregular manner in connivance with otherrespondents. This Court issued notice on the petition to the respondents. Reply was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4. In the reply, therespondents denied that they are blocking are entire entrance to the shop ofthe petitioner by placing two tables of 6 x4 , or keeping a particular quantity of shirts on those tables. The respondents have taken a noval plea thatthey are employees of Padam Chand, who is squatting on the allegedsite and doing the business. It is further submitted that the matter pertaining to Padam Chand is pending adjudication by the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has blaced on record photographs which clearly showthat exactly in front of the shop a table has been placed and on that table,respondents 3 and 4 are carrying on the business. ( 6 ). Respondents 3 and 4 admittedly have no legal right whatsoeverto squat in Chandni Chowk, one of the business centres of Delhi, withoutany permission from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Admittedly, notehbazari or licence has been issued to respondents 3 and 4 to squat on thepremises in question. No protection whatsoever can be granted to respondents 3 and 4 even if they are employees of Padam Chand, The respondentsno. Admittedly, notehbazari or licence has been issued to respondents 3 and 4 to squat on thepremises in question. No protection whatsoever can be granted to respondents 3 and 4 even if they are employees of Padam Chand, The respondentsno. 3 and 4 cannot take shelter in the garb of the pendency of the writpetition of Padam Chand, or the matter is pending adjudication. It employees, agents and representatives of hawkers and squatters are. given thiskind of protection, then, there would hardly by any space for passing andre-passing by the padestrians. It is bound to cause great inconvenience topublic at large. The Supreme Court in she Constitution Bench Judgmentsaudan Singh v. N. D. M. C. and Others, 46 (1992) DLT, 671 (SC) has laid downguidelines for hawkers and squatters. ( 7 ). Apart from causing great inconvenience to the public at largeplacing of the table by respondents 3 and 4 in front of the petitioners shopinfringes the petitioner s rights to carry on his business peacefully. ( 8 ). In these circumstances, we are left with no option but to allowthe writ petition and direct the respondents 3 and 4 to remove their table/tables in front of the petitioners shop at 455, Chandni Chowk, Delhi frorthwith. ( 9 ). Respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure compliance of the orders of thiscourt. ( 10 ). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the partiesto bear their own costs. Petition allowed.