Judgment 1. Annai Velankanni Siru Viyabarigal Munnetra Sangam represented by its Secretary has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to evict the members of the petitioner-Sangam from the respective petty shops located in the Church Road,Velankanni. 2. The case of the petitioner Sangam is briefly stated hereunder: It is registered under the Societies Registration Act on 27.9.1988. There are 26 members in the said Sangam. the members of the petitioner-Sangam have put up small petty shops in the road leading to Annai Vellankanni Church from South to North and the said road belongs to Highways Department. There is no hindrance to anybody including traffic because of the location of these shops. They are all small petty traders doing business like selling or groundnut, sweets, pori kadalai and other items such as turmeric, kumkum etc. to the pilgrims who visits the famous Annai Velankanni Church. The members of the petitioner-Sangam earned their livelihood only from the income they derived from these petty business. The members of the petitioner-Sangam have established the said business 10 years back and in order to regulate the business and also to improve the lot of the petty traders the said Sangam was formed and registered in the year 1988. The third respondent Velankanni Township used to collect daily lease amount from the members of the petitioner-Sangam at the rate of Rs.2 and issued receipts for the same. Since the work of collecting the daily lease amount is onerous the third respondent has auctioned the right to collect the said lease amount from the members of the petitioner-Sangam on behalf of the third respondent. It is further stated that, the road which leads to the Annai Velankanni Church ends with the church and there is a blind end. As such the shops are situated in a road which is not having any heavy traffic and the shops are located only to help the pilgrims. The shops are absolutely necessary in the said place for the public convenience. 3. It is further submitted that, due to certain differences which are political in nature, the first respondent is compelled to remove certain shops and particularly the shops belonging to the members of the petitioner-Sangam and the others are not disturbed. The shops are absolutely necessary in the said place for the public convenience. 3. It is further submitted that, due to certain differences which are political in nature, the first respondent is compelled to remove certain shops and particularly the shops belonging to the members of the petitioner-Sangam and the others are not disturbed. The members of the petitioner-Sangam have been orally warned on 19.7.1993 that if they failed to remove the shops themselves the shops will be removed on 26.7.1993. In such circumstances, they approached, this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. The first respondent-District Collector has filed a counter- affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner-Sangam. It is stated that, the famous Holy Shrine of Our Lady of Health Annai Velankanni is located in the Velankanni Town Panchayat. Every year at the time of annual festival, lakhs of pilgrims from all over India re-assembling here to worship the “Our lady of Health”. In order to conduct the festival in an orderly manner, the District Administration is used to take all precautionary measures to provide facilities for the free movement of the people around the church and on the main road in which the ‘Sapram of Annai’ passes through during the 10 days festival. All the encroachers will vacate their unauthorised occupation in the roads, street during the festival time. The Town Panchayat alone has auctioned the right of collecting the fees from the street vendors who are moving in the streets. The oral notice of eviction was given to all the vendors. It is further stated that in the interest of general public and in view of the two different group of political parties involved in this case, for personal gains and in order to avoid any further law and order problem, the first respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The second respondent-Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Nagapattinam filed a separate counter-affidavit reiterating the stand taken by the first respondent. 6. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents. 7. 5. The second respondent-Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Nagapattinam filed a separate counter-affidavit reiterating the stand taken by the first respondent. 6. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents. 7. Mr.B.S.Gnanadesikan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Sangam has contended that, inasmuch as street trading is permissible and the members of the petitioner-Sangam using the road margins for several years, petitioner-Sangam is entitled to approach this Court for appropriate direction directing the respondents not to evict the members of the petitioner-Sangam from the respective petty shops located in the Church Road,Velankanni. He also submitted that the respondents failed to follow Collectors standing orders before taking action against the members of the petitioner-Sangam. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate as well as Mr.A.Fathimanathan, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent after highlighting the inconvenience to the lakhs of devotees during the festival time has contended that the members of the petitioner-Sangam may be evicted from the road in which they are doing business. He also submitted that in view of pendency of the writ petition, no further notice is required under any statutory provision. He also contended that in view of the factual position involved, this Court is not competent to issue any such direction and if the petitioners have any grievance they have to approach only the civil court, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 9. There is no dispute that the members of the petitioner-Sangam are doing business in the road leading to Annai Velankanni Church from South to North and the said road belongs to Highways Department. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no hindrance to anybody including traffic because of the location of the shops. It is further stated that they are all small petty traders doing business like selling of groundnut, sweets, porikadalai and other items such as turmeric kumkum etc., to the pilgrims who visits the famous Annai Velankanni Church, It is also their case that, it is their livelihood and they get income only from these petty business. It is further stated that they are all small petty traders doing business like selling of groundnut, sweets, porikadalai and other items such as turmeric kumkum etc., to the pilgrims who visits the famous Annai Velankanni Church, It is also their case that, it is their livelihood and they get income only from these petty business. Even though the occupation of the members of the petitioner-Sangam and others have been stoutly opposed by the Revenue and Church authorities, the fact remains, the third respondent viz., Velankanni Township used to collect daily licence fee from the members of the petitioner-Sangam and issue receipt for the same. As a matter of fact, some time they even entrust to collection work in favour of an agency by conducting auction. This has not been disputed. No doubt, even though the members of the petitioner-Sangam are only hawkers and have no fundamental right in street trading but in view of the fact that their livelihood is depending on the petty business and the pilgrims are also in need of those items, some workable solution has to be arrived. 10. In order to appreciate the claim made by both parties, I shall refer some of the decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court dealing with the similar matters. (i) Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1206; (ii) Olga Tellis and (viii) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan , A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 158. The perusal of the above referred decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court clearly show that though the petty traders are hawkers, having no fundamental right in doing business in street and pavements, without detriment to the road users it is possible for the concerned authority to allow those persons to do petty business by facing workable scheme. I have already observed that the third respondent Velankanni Township themselves used to collect licence fees from the persons who use to sell some articles from open place to another in the said areas. It is also not possible to under- estimate the objection made by the District Adminstration, particularly at the time of annual festival. I have already observed that the third respondent Velankanni Township themselves used to collect licence fees from the persons who use to sell some articles from open place to another in the said areas. It is also not possible to under- estimate the objection made by the District Adminstration, particularly at the time of annual festival. It is seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the Collector, Nagapattinam District at the time of annual festival lakhs of pilgrims from all over India used to worship the “Our lady of Health,” it is needless to mention that in order to conduct the festival in an orderly manner, the District Adminstration is bound to take all precautionary measures to provide facilities for the free movement of the people around the church and on the main road in which the “Sapram of Annai” passes through during the 10 days festival. Even though the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit, neither the petitioner nor the respondents furnished the width of the road in which “Sapram of Annai” passes through during the 10 days festival. 11. Even though the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit, neither the petitioner nor the respondents furnished the width of the road in which “Sapram of Annai” passes through during the 10 days festival. 11. Taking note of the legal position, as well as the plight of the members of the petitioner sangam and others coupled with free flow of traffic during annual festival time, interest of justice would be met by passing the following directions: (1) The members of the petitioner sangam or other persons similarly placed are permitted to do petty business on either side of the road margin leading to the church; (2) they are not permitted to put up any permanent/ semi structure to do their business; (3) Even the temporary structure shall be removable at once; (4) they must leave minimum 5 feet from the end portion of the road in order to facilitate free movement of public to do business from the existing permanent shops on either side; (5) it is open to the third respondent Velankanni Township to impose and collect necessary licence fee from the respective persons; (6) during the annual festival, all the persons doing petty business as stated above have to remove and clear the road an hour before the ‘sangam of Annai’ is being taken through the roads and as soon as the ‘Sapram of Annai’ reaches the church, it is open to them to do business as stated above, and (7) it is open to the District Collector, Nagapattinam or other authority working under him or the Executive Officer Velankanni Township to issue appropriate direction for removal of the petty traders if the same is warranted depending on the situation as a temporary measure. 12. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs.