Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Vijoy Singh and Rameshwar Prasad Sahu complaining that there is a colony which has been planned and executed by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna known as Hanuman Nagar. The contention is that this was a planned colony developed by a public sector housing corporation. There have been encroachments on the public road which is east of the colony constructed by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. The High Court had issued notice on the petition. The fact that on the public road, east of the colony as well as on the flanks of the road constructions have been made, was accepted by the State respondents. 2. The defence being offered in the writ petition is that those who had occupied the public road with construction thereon were already under a notice to vacate the encroachment and that an alternative area was being located for the occupiers. It is relevant to know as to who the occupiers are ? It is on record that the District administration had shifted a police station on the public road. It was being explained to the Court that what was occupied was in fact a community hall. It was further being explained that the community hall was on the road side. The question is what is a public road ? 3. The larger of the buildings on the public road measures 426"/256". What is adjoining and on the side of the flanks of the road i.e. the road side is a building measuring 86"/36". The respondents claim that this was a community hall. Would a building which is virtually the length of a man with his hands raised up, good for a community hall ? Whether the entire community of the housing colony will be able to transact its community business in a space less than 30 square feet. The existence of the main building which was on the road itself cannot be explained. 4. The protection of the road, is a law which has been settled by the Supreme Court. This Court does not have to emphasise that nothing may come on the road or its sides, the patri and the purpose of a public road is passage only. Two decisions of the Supreme Court would suffice. 4. The protection of the road, is a law which has been settled by the Supreme Court. This Court does not have to emphasise that nothing may come on the road or its sides, the patri and the purpose of a public road is passage only. Two decisions of the Supreme Court would suffice. One is A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1147 : Municipal Board Manglaur V/s. Mahadeoji Maharaj and the other A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1785 : State of U.P. V/s. Atta Mohammad. 5. After these decisions had been brought to the notice of learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, rather than submit, a request was made to adjourn the matter to advise the respondents. 6. On 30 June, 2000, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh learned State counsel made submission before the Court that the offending structures are in the process of being removed. Today learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 has made a statement on the basis of instructions from the District Magistrate, Patna that both the buildings on the road and the road-side have been demolished and removed. 7. In the circumstances, the public road as planned for Hanuman Nagar Housing colony is free for being used for the purposes of passage. 8. The petition succeeds. As the un-autorised constructions have been removed by the State respondents there will be no order as to costs.