JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The seven petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the Chandigarh Administration to allocate alternative sites so as to enable them to do their business as "hawkers/rebri/farhi vendors, if they cannot be settled in Sector 26, Mandi". 2. Mr. Ajay Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the respondent are not permitting the petitioners to continue their business in Sector 26 market. In this situation, the counsel prays that the Administration should provide alternative sites. Reliance has been placed on the decision of a Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17105 of 1996. 3. Admittedly, the Administration has framed the Bye-laws calledChandigarh Hand Cart (Control and Regulation) Bye-laws, 1975. These Bye-laws have been framed under Sections 188 to 199 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the other provisions of law. Bye-law 3 inter alia provides that "no person shall use a hand cart unless he has obtained under these Bye-laws a licence in Form A... "Admittedly, the petitioners do not have any licences. Their activities are, thus, wholly contrary to the Bye-laws. Mr. Mahajan submits that the petitioners have applied for licences. Assuming it to be so, it is the admitted position that no licence has been issued to any of the petitioners so far. In this situation, it is clear that the petitioners are keeping their hand-carts in Sector 26 market in violation of the Bye-laws. 4. A writ of Mandamus can be issued only when a person can show the existence of a right in him and an obligation in the respondent. In the present case, the petitioners have no right. The action of the respondents in asking the petitioners to vacate the places occupied by them is in conformity with law. No ground for the issue of a writ of mandamus is made out. 5. Mr. Mahajan submits that directions have already been given by a Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17105 of 1996 (Sabzi Mandi Association and others v. Chandigarh Administration and others). 6. That was a case where the members of the association were licensed vendors. Such is not position in the present case. Thus, the petitioners can derive no advantage from the decision. 7. No other point has been raised. 8. 6. That was a case where the members of the association were licensed vendors. Such is not position in the present case. Thus, the petitioners can derive no advantage from the decision. 7. No other point has been raised. 8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition. It is, consequently dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.