Judgment 1. This writ petition has no merit. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners, who are the So-called lessees of the Kotdwar Municipality in respect of the shops near Railway Station, are claiming injunction against the said municipality from evicting them. 3. In their writ petition, the petitioners have made all kinds of vague allegations that they are carrying on business in their respective shops since 40 years near Hanuman Mandir, Station Road, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. It is their contention that they were paying the lease money to the Municipality and the Municipality had decided to demolish their constructions. 4. A detailed counter was filed, in which it is pointed out that these petitioners were not lessees of the Municipality and in fact their shops were creating disturbance to the otherwise smooth traffic. It is pointed that these persons use to move in their mobile shops and on that account used to pay taxes to the Municipality. However, it is asserted that at no point of time permission was given to the petitioners for constructing the shop and that so called constructions by these petitioners were without any permission, licence or any lease-deed, and that they were also proving to be a great hindrance to the traffic. It is also pointed out that the payment of , tax , (Tahbajari) would not create any right in these petitioners. It is further pointed out that the population of the Kotdwar town is about 50000 and Station Road is the busiest road and right in the middle of the city and barely 250 meters from these temporary constructions, the Head Office of the Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd. is situated and from that place buses also ply. Nearby is the Taxi Union office and therefore, there is terrible congestion on account of these constructions. These constructions were purely encroachment. It is denied that these petitioners were rehabilitated and that any rights were conferred upon them to occupy the place that they have occupied. 5. There is no doubt a rejoinder affidavit, but in that they are reasserting that the Municipality was taking rent from the petitioners. 6. We are completely convinced that the petitioners have no right whatsoever and are merely encroachers. If they are so held, there will be nothing wrong in the Municipality trying to evict them by legal means. The petitioners have no right in law. 7. 6. We are completely convinced that the petitioners have no right whatsoever and are merely encroachers. If they are so held, there will be nothing wrong in the Municipality trying to evict them by legal means. The petitioners have no right in law. 7. The decision of the Supreme Court rendered in (1997) 11 S.C.C. 121- Ahmadabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others was pressed into service. We do not think that this law applies in any manner in the present case. On the other hand, the 'observations in this judgment, more particularly, in paragraph 13 are that it is the duty of the local bodies and the State to see that the public property is ,preserved and protected and is safe from the encroachers. That precisely, the Municipality is doing. We do not find any right in any of the petitioners. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. 9. The petitioners, if so choose may approach the Municipality for alternative place, which shall be considered by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kotdwar.