Judgment :- The petitioners have filed the above writ petition seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioners from their respective occupation in Madras-Thiruvallur High Road and adjacent streets of Ambattur Bus Stand contrary to the procedure established under law. 2. The petitioners are carrying on small trade in Madras-Thiruvallur High Road at Ambattur. According to them they have been doing business for a long time. When the second respondent with the help of the subordinates attempted to evict and demolish the small petty shops on 5-2-1993, due to the intervention of the office bearers of the Traders Association, the second respondent went back. Subsequently on 6-2-1993 and 8-2-1993 the officials of the second respondent seem to have informed the petitioners that they will evict them. The petitioners have filed the above writ petition on the ground that they should not be evicted without following the procedures and in accordance with law. 3. The first respondent filed a counter denying that the petitioners have been doing business for a long time in the Madras-Tiruvellore High Road. According to the first respondent, they announced through loud-speaker to remove the encroachments made by the encroachers. As the first respondent informed about the eviction proceedings, the question of further information to them will not arise. The encroachments made by the petitioners had been objected to by the public since the encroachers had been obstructing the free flow of movements and also they have been making unnecessary nuisance to the public and municipality. The first respondent is taking eviction proceedings only under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has reiterated the averments contained in the affidavit. He mainly objected to the eviction on the ground that eviction can be done only after following the procedures prescribed under law and also following the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the encroachments made by the petitioners have been objected by the public as such encroachments are obstruction to free flow of movement and also hindrance to traffic. According to the learned Counsel, since the petitioners are encroachers and the encroachments are very much causing nuisance to the public, the question of applying the principles of natural justice will not arise. 6. According to the learned Counsel, since the petitioners are encroachers and the encroachments are very much causing nuisance to the public, the question of applying the principles of natural justice will not arise. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners are encroachers and they are occupying the public space without any authorisation from the respondents. It is not denied that such encroachments are hindrance to the public for their free movement and also for traffic. Moreover, according to the petitioners, the officials have informed the petitioners to remove the encroachments on 6-2-1983 and 8-2-1993. It is specific case of the first respondent that the announcement was made through loud-speaker to remove the encroachments. In similar circumstances, while dealing with the removal of encroachment, the Apex Court, in the decision reported in 1997 AIR(SC) 152, 1996 (8) AD(SC) 183, 1996 (10) JT 485 , 1996 (7) Scale 770 , 1997 (11) SCC 121 , 1996 AIR(SCW) 4315, Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, has held as follows (at page 157) :- "The removal of encroachment needs urgent action. But in this behalf what requires to be done by the competent authority is to ensure constant vigil on encroachment of the public places. Sooner the encroachment is removed when sighted, better would be the facilities or convenience for passing or re-passing of the pedestrians on the pavements or footpaths facilitating free flow of regulated traffic on the road or use of public places. On the contrary, the longer the delay, the greater will be the danger of permitting the encroachers claiming semblance of right to obstruct removal of the encroachment. If the encroachment is of a recent origin the need to follow the procedure of principles of natural justice could be obviated in that no one has a right to encroach upon the public property and claim the procedure of opportunity of hearing which would be a tardious and time-consuming process leading to putting a premium for high-handed and unauthorised acts of encroachment and unlawful squatting. On the other hand, if the Corporation allows settlement of encroachers for a long time for reasons best known to them, and reasons are not far to seek, then necessarily a modicum of reasonable notice for removal, say two weeks or 10 days, and personal service on the encroachers or substituted service by fixing notice on the property is necessary. On the other hand, if the Corporation allows settlement of encroachers for a long time for reasons best known to them, and reasons are not far to seek, then necessarily a modicum of reasonable notice for removal, say two weeks or 10 days, and personal service on the encroachers or substituted service by fixing notice on the property is necessary. If the encroachment is not removed within the specified time, the competent authority would be at liberty to have it removed. That would meet the fairness of procedure and principle of giving opportunity to remove the encroachment voluntarily by the encroachers. On their resistance, necessarily appropriate and reasonable force can be used to have the encroachment removed. Thus considered, we hold that the action taken by the appellant-Corporation is not violative of the principles of natural justice." * So, the petitioners cannot occupy the public space by way of right as they are only encroachers. The encroachments should be removed for the benefit of the public. The petitioners cannot resist the same on the ground that notice was not given. It is well-settled that no person has a right to encroach on foot-path, pavement or public place. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 4524 of 1993 and 6735 of 1997 are also dismissed. Petition dismissed.