Judgment :- (This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Auction Notification of the respondent in MV4.24590/2004 published in "Dhina Bhoomi" Tamil Daily dated 21.1.2005 in respect of Auction for granting lease or license of the open space sites-shops of Krishnarayar Teppakkulam East and South Streets of Madurai Town to be held on 9.2.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent and their officials by forbearing them from in any way leasing out or giving license of the open space area of the two public streets by names called Krishanarayar Teppakkulam East and South Streets of Madurai Town to any body for their business or trade purposes by conducting the auction either on 9.2.2005 or on any other subsequent dates as advertised by the respondent in Dhina Bhoomi Tamil Daily dated 21.1.2005 and to keep these streets as it is and pass such other and further orders.) P.D. Dinakaran.J. The petitioner is the Old Motor Spare Parts Dealers Association, represented by its President. The Members of the Petitioner-Association are having their shops in Krishnarayar Teppakkulam East and South Streets of Madurai Town. On an earlier occasion, when the Petitioner-Association moved a Writ Petition in W.P.No:2363 of 2004, specifically alleging that the Maduri City Municipal Corporation proposes to lease out the roadside open space to the individual vendors, recording the undertaking given before this Court by the learned standing counsel for the Madurai Corporation that the Corporation is not proposing or having any plan to lease out or to give license for the open space area of the two streets, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 14.10.2004, with an observation that if anybody has applied for lease or license for the open space area of the said two streets, the Members of the Petitioner-Association should be given a chance to oppose the same. 2.1. In spite of the above clear undertaking that the Madurai Corporation is not proposing or having any plan to lease out the open space area in the said two Streets, the Corporation has now chosen to publish tender notification dated 19.1.2005, proposing to lease out the roadside open space for shops measuring 6 x 4 sft each in the said two streets by conducing an auction on 9.2.2005. 2.2. 2.2. Inter alia, it is also contended that the very width of the impugned streets is only 18 ft. and both the streets are over-crowded and it will cause great hardship to the public as well as the customers if the roadsides of these narrow streets are auctioned to the hawkers. 2.3. Hence, the petitioner-association has preferred this petition for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Auction Notification of the respondent in MV4.24590/2004 published in "Dhina Bhoomi" Tamil Daily dated 21.1.2005 in respect of Auction for granting lease or license of the open space sites-shops of Krishnarayar Teppakkulam East and South Streets of Madurai Town to be held on 9.2.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent and their officials by forbearing them from in any way leasing out or giving license of the open space area of the two public streets by names called Krishanarayar Teppakkulam East and South Streets of Madurai Town to any body for their business or trade purposes by conducting the auction either on 9.2.2005 or on any other subsequent dates as advertised by the respondent in Dhina Bhoomi Tamil Daily dated 21.1.2005 and to keep these streets as it is and pass such other and further orders. 3. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel taking notice for the respondent-Madurai Corporation, fairly concedes that the Corporation had given an undertaking before this court while disposing the W.P.No:2363 of 2004 to the effect that the respondent-Madurai Corporation is not proposing or having any plan to lease out or to give license for the open space area of the two streets. However, the Standing Counsel submits that the Members of the Petitioner-Association are also encroaching the open space available in front of their respective shops. 4. After giving due consideration to the submissions of both sides, we are unable to appreciate either the stand of the Petitioner-Association in so far as the encroachments of the open space in front of their shops in the said two Streets, or the proposal of the Respondent-Madurai Corporation to lease out the open space by conducting an auction on 9.2.2005 by issuing Tender Notification dated 19.1.2005, published in Tamil Daily "Dhina Boomi", dated 21.1.2005. 5. 5. It is the settled law that public streets by their very nomenclature and definition, are meant for the use of the general public and they are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of any private trade or business. If the hawkers were to be conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold the society to ransom by squatting on the center of busy thoroughfares, and thereby paralysing all civil life. The hawkers together with their shops or the objects which they sell and which they exhibit in the shops or on the roadside pavements, constitute an obstruction-projection in or upon the streets and other public places. The Corporation has an obligatory duty to maintain streets and passages for the benefit of the general public. In the event of any encroachment, the authority has the power to see that such streets are kept for the purpose for which it was intended without allowing the encroachment to frustrate the object, vide Thiruchirappalli Palporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam Vs. Commissioner, Corporation Of Thiruchirappalli (1999 (1) L.W.367) . 6. Therefore, this court has a duty to protect the rights of the public to use the public streets, in the event of any interference of the streets. Because there is a statutory obligation vested on the Madurai Corporation to maintain the Roads and Streets free from any encroachments. When the Statute contemplates certain obligatory duty on the part of the Corporation to do a particular thing for preservation of the public property for public use, the Court has got every right to point out such duty to the statutory authorities and direct them to discharge their public duty. 7. Of course, it is also a settled law that no one has the right to encroach on the public street and the hawkers or squatters have no right to occupy any particular place on the pavement. But, if the livelihood of any hawker is affected offending Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, the same could be regulated under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India by the local bodies, exercising their statutory power. Allowing the right to trade without appropriate control is likely to lead to unhealthy competition and quarrel between traders and travelling public and sometimes amongst the traders themselves resulting in chaos. Allowing the right to trade without appropriate control is likely to lead to unhealthy competition and quarrel between traders and travelling public and sometimes amongst the traders themselves resulting in chaos. All public streets and roads in India vest in the State but the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public, and the members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of right. The right of pavement hawker is thus subject to reasonable restrictions under Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and they cannot hold the society to ransom by squatting on the busy thoroughfare thereby paralysing all civic life. Therefore, while regretting for the proposal to lease out the roadside open space for shops, the local body are expected to take various circumstances into consideration, viz., location, width and the necessity of security measures, etc. There should be a rational basis for the choice of the licensees. A policy decision should be taken in regard to the articles which should be permitted to be sold on the pavements. Unless the State and the local body take a clear decision on these issues, it may not be proper to lease out the roadside space of the public streets for traders, which would not only affect the shop owners on the street, but also the customers as well as the general public at large, particularly, when the grant of lease is intended in narrow streets. 8. But, in the instant case, the Corporation has fairly undertook that the Corporation is not proposing or having any plan to lease out or to give license for the open space area of the two streets in the order dated 14.10.2004 made in W.P.No.2363 of 2004. Therefore, the impugned proposal for leasing out the roadsides of the public streets as proposed in the notification dated 19.1.2005 is arbitrary and unjustified, as they propose to violate their own undertaking recorded before this Court, which was given after due consideration. Therefore, the impugned proposal for leasing out the roadsides of the public streets as proposed in the notification dated 19.1.2005 is arbitrary and unjustified, as they propose to violate their own undertaking recorded before this Court, which was given after due consideration. That apart, in the larger interest of the society, unless a valid license/lease is granted to run shops on the roadsides of the public streets, by exercising statutory powers under the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, we are of the considered opinion that such encroachers, who are squatting on the public street offending the traffic and the free movement of the public are liable to be evicted, of course by following the due process of law. 9. For all the above reasons, while quashing the impugned Tender Notification, dated 19.1.2005, inviting tenders for grant of license for the open space in the Krishanarayar Teppakkulam East and South Streets of Madurai Town and forbearing the respondent-Madurai Corporation from in any way leasing out or giving any license of the open space area of the said two Streets and directing the members of Petitioner-Association themselves to remove their encroachments in front of their respective shops, we also direct the respondent-Madurai Corporation to take all effective steps to remove all encroachments in all the public roads and streets within the jurisdiction of this Temple City, if necessary with the aid of the police, but following the due process of law. Unless and otherwise such occupants are protected by valid license/lease granted by the respondent/Corporation, the respondent shall comply the above directions without any undue delay. 10. The writ petition is ordered with the above directions. No costs. Connected WPMPs are closed. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the District Collector, Madurai; and (ii) The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.