V. Dutta Gyani, J- This public interest litigation petition filed by the residents of Dibrugarh Town praying for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to stop the market run on both sides of BC Das Road, Dibru­garh from Mancotta Overbridge to Shantipara Railway Crossing Gate. 2. Petitioners' case is that BC Das Road has practically been converted into a Daily Market by fish and vegetable vendors blocking both sides of the road, throwing all garbage in the drains which goes on from dawn to dusk with the result that the drains have disappeared causing nuisance to the inhabitants of BC Das Road and adjoining areas. Recently this daily market was declared unauthorised by the Municipal Board. The holding of daily market leads to conjestion, traffic blockades and pollution. The petitioners approached various authorities for redressal of their gnievances as is evident from Annexures B and D. There used to be settlement of bazar on this road, so the inhabitants had approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 974 of 1993 wherein the following order was passed on 14.10.93 : "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered and directed that the period (1.4.92 to 30.10.92) mentioned in the letter dated 24.3.93 of the Executive Officer, Dibrugarh Municipality, Dibrugarh shall not be extended and settlement of the bazar in question with Sri Manabendra Saikia from 1.11.92 to 31.10.93 is stayed until further orders. Aggrieved party may apply for modification of this order." 3. The petitioners have averred that with a view to circumvent the aforesaid order the Municipal Board has now developed a new practice of collecting tolls from pavement vegetable and fish vendors on the said road. The Municipal Board is presently under suspension and being administered by an Administrator appointed by the State Govt. 4. We have heard Mr. C. Baruah learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. The Public Inte­rest Litigation is not a litigation of an adversorial character. This kind of liti­gation involves collective effort on the part of the State Govt. and its Officers. 5. 4. We have heard Mr. C. Baruah learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. The Public Inte­rest Litigation is not a litigation of an adversorial character. This kind of liti­gation involves collective effort on the part of the State Govt. and its Officers. 5. The petitioners have filed a notice issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board which reads as follows : “NOTICE This is to bring to the notice of the resident of Dibrugarh that some people are doing their business illegally by the side of BC Das Road (under the over bridge) and near the Paltan Bazar Road causing obstru­ction to the public movement and traffic disturbances. Therefore, it is directed to close down their business immediately. Otherwise drastic actions will be taken against those businessman under the Municipal Act." What is lacking is the will to enforce the law on the part of the respondent authorities. 6. Vendors or hawkers on footpaths and pavements of any road can not claim any fundamental right to carry on their business of seeing fish and vegetables in a public street converting into a market. It amounts to a public nuisance. The test is not whether sufficient alternative passage is left or avai­lable or there is no obstruction to public way. The test is whether it renders the way less commodious than before to the public ? Apart from obstruction there is pollution and nuisance caused to the inhabitants of BC Das Road by throwing garbage in the drains. 7. A volume of case law having bearing on the issue has come to develop covering a wide range of civil amenities. The case of shifting of graves in Varanasi (Gulam Abbas vs. State of UP, (1984)1 SCC 81 : AIR 1983 SC 1268 ) and (1984) 4 SCC 607 ), the Ganga water pollution by discharge of trade effluents by tanneries at Sajman Kanpur (MC Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037 ), the ecological imbalance caused by stone quarry operation in Mussoorie Doon Mills ( AIR 1987 SC 357 ), are but a few cases where the Supreme Court has issued directions to local bodies and administrative autho­rities to ensure public health and hygienic and civil amenities. 8. 8. The Supreme Court while dealing with use of road has held that preliminary object of leading road is to facilitate people to travel one place to another, even a traveller can not create unreasonable obstruction which may cause inconvenience to others. Nor he is permitted to make excessive use of a road to the prejudice of others (Sheonandan Paswan vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988 .) In case of pavement hawkers, they can not be permitted to spread on empty road in the city. Various circumstances suggests width of the road, location of hospital or other necessary public amenities, amount of traffic etc. are important factors to be taken into consideration (see Bombay Hawker's Union vs. Bambay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 528 )., 9. The learned Govt. Advocate, it may be noted that, had taken a very fair stand, but this fairness needs to be transformed into action by making the road free from encroachers and saved from being converted into a market by vegetable and fish vendors-the sooner it is done, the better. However, con­sidering the nature of the problem, we think it proper to grant three months time to the respondents to carry the following directions - (A) Respondent Municipal Board shall remove all encroachment and structures over Be Das Road from Mancotta Over Bridge to Shantipara Railway Crossing Gate and shall keep the read clean; and (B) The Respondents shall frame a comprehensive scheme regarding street trading in the Dibrugarh town so as to rehabilitate the vegetable and fish vendors at present carrying on business at the above place; and (C) Pass appropriate order prohibiting selling of vegetable and fish on the BC Das Road, Dibrugarh. The petition is allowed. We make no order to cost.