Honble SHETHNA, J.–All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as common point is involved in all these petitions. (2). All the petitioners belong to a lower economic class and with great difficulties, they are able to earn their livelihood by running petty business, like teal stalls, Pan shops, etc. in small gallas, on the Bus Stand of Doongargarh. It is their case that since more than 25 to 30 years, they and their predecessors are running the petty business there. (3). They have filed these petitions because since last one month, the respondents, mainly respondents No.4 and 5, are coming to the shops of the petitioners and threatening them to vacate the premises and shift it to some other places, otherwise they would be thrown out forcibly from the present premises. Before approaching this Court, all the petitioners made representations to the respondent No.4, with copies to respondent No.5, but so far the same are not decided. Therefore, they have approached this Court by way of these petitions. (4). Learned counsel Mr. Gahlot, for the petitioners, submitted that if the petitioners are thrown out from the present premises, then they will be deprived of their livelihood, which would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. He, therefore, submitted that suitable directions be issued to the respondents in these writ petitions. Mr. Gahlot also stated that if the respondent-municipality provides alternative suitable accommodation to them (petitioners) then they will immediately shift there from the present premises. (5). It appears that all the petitioners made separate representations on 25th September, 1999 and within 4 days, i.e., on 29th September, 1999 they have filed these petitions before this Court, before the said representations are decided. Thus, in my view, these petitions are slightly at a premature stage. At the same time, there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of the petitioners that before their representations are decided, they might be even thrown out from the present premises, therefore, this Court has to pass appropriate order. (6). As laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1), right to life includes the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution and deprivation of right to livelihood, except according to just and fair procedure established by law, would be bad. (6). As laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1), right to life includes the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution and deprivation of right to livelihood, except according to just and fair procedure established by law, would be bad. At the same time, this Court also cannot over look the fact that the Municipality is empowered to remove the encroachment made on the public place. Public have the right of passage or access to use the Bus Stand and it cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair and unjust. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim of the petitioners to put up `gallas on the public place like Bus Stand and that of the public at large to make use of Bus Stand for passing and repassing are competing claims and that the former should be preferred to the latter. (7). From the copy of the representations annexed alongwith the petitions, it appears that they do not want to shift from the present premises, but as stated at bar by the learned counsel Mr. Gahlot, for the petitioners that if the Municipality provides alternative accommodation to them, then they would immediately shift there from the present premises. (8). In view of the above, the Respondents No.4 and 5 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners sympathetically and objectively and decide the same as early as possible, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If it is not possible to continue them at the present premises near the Bus Stand in view of the inconvenience caused to the public at large at the Bust Stand, then before shifting them, they may consider the question of providing alternative accommodation to them some where else, till then they may not disturb the petitioners, if they are not disturbed. (9). With these observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. (10). Since the main petitions have been disposed of, the stay applications stand disposed of automatically.