JUDGMENT L. Mohapatra, J. 1. W.P. (C) No. 16632 of 2009 has been filed by the Sunabeda Merchants Association and two others questioning the legality of authority of opposite parties 2 to 4 in taking action for eviction of its members from the quarters allotted to them and W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009 has been filed by Ramesh Ch. Padhi in his individual capacity raising the very same question. Therefore, these two writ applications were heard together and are disposed of in this common judgment. 2. The members of the Association, who had filed writ application individually challenging the order passed by the Estate Officer have been dealt with and disposed of separately since the question involved in those cases was different than these two writ applications. The case of the Association and the petitioner in the connected writ application is that in the year 1967 when the process of construction of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. : Township was going on, opposite party No. 2 in W.P. (C) No. 16632 of 2009 made an offer to persons, who were interested for opening of shops and were also promised that they would be allotted with quarters for their occupation in the Township as no private land is available in the Township to accommodate any one except the Officers of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (in short 'HAL'). Accordingly, the members of the Association including the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009 submitted their applications and they were allotted with not only the shop rooms but also quarters to accommodate their respective families. The members of the Association came into business within the Township of HAL in different phases and have been running their shops for a considerable length of time. HAL was collecting rent for the quarters apart from water and electricity charges and security deposit had also collected from the members of the Association in respect of each allotment of quarters. At the time of allotment of quarters, a condition was imposed to the effect that if at any time for any reason the allottees are allotted alternative accommodation, they will shift to the new accommodation that may be provided to them. At the time of allotment of quarters, a condition was imposed to the effect that if at any time for any reason the allottees are allotted alternative accommodation, they will shift to the new accommodation that may be provided to them. It was also stipulated that when the accommodation is no longer required by the allottees due to any reason or the allotment is cancelled by HAL for any breach of rules, the allottees are responsible for handing over possession of the same to the Town Administration Department in terms of the allotment order. According to the Association, the terms and conditions in respect of allotment of quarter clearly establish that such allotment shall not be cancelled unless alternative accommodation is made available to these members and cancellation of allotment of quarters can only be made, if any allottee violates the conditions provided in the allotment letter. As it appears from the averments made in both the writ applications, by now nearabout 145 such private persons have been allotted with shop rooms and quarters and they are continuing to occupy both. The license granted in favour of the allottees was renewed from time to time but there has been no renewal from the year 2003. When the matter stood thus, opposite party No. 2 by letter dated 10th October, 2003 informed the members of the Association that they should hand over possession of the quarters as and when required by the management. According to the Association and its members, the terms and conditions in the said letter being contrary to what had been promised, objections were raised. The Association and its members requested the said opposite party No. 2 for renewal of the license without any further terms and conditions but the said relief was not granted. In order to resolve the dispute, on 3-6-2006 a joint meeting was convened in the office of the General Manager (P & A) which was attended by three Senior Officers of HAL and the members of the Association. After due deliberation, the Chief Manager (P & A) representing the management of HAL declared that even if any clause is incorporated for eviction of allottees from the quarters, there need not be any apprehension in the mind of the allottees that they would be evicted. After due deliberation, the Chief Manager (P & A) representing the management of HAL declared that even if any clause is incorporated for eviction of allottees from the quarters, there need not be any apprehension in the mind of the allottees that they would be evicted. It was also stated in the said meeting that till the date no allottee had been given notice to vacate the quarters and probably it may not happen so. Howeyer, the management assured that the persons, who are holding quarters are not likely to be asked to vacate, but the clause should be incorporated in the agreement. In spite of such assurance, the members of the Association objected to inclusion of such clause and ultimately the meeting brought about no result. Almost two and half years thereafter suddenly notices were given to all the allottees on 7-1-2009 to deliver vacant possession of the quarters allotted in their favour and it was also stipulated in the notice that from the date of receipt of the notice, amenities like electricity and water shall be disconnected from the quarters besides initiation of proceedings for eviction. Challenging the said notice, the Association moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1112 of 2009 and the said writ application was disposed of on 30-1-2009 with an observation that the members of the Association shall not be evicted without following the due process of law. Thereafter, different proceedings were initiated against all the members of the Association for eviction by the Estate Officer of HAL under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the notices were sent to individual members of the Association. The members of the Association appeared before the Estate Officer and filed applications under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. on the ground that they being lessees and not licensees, such proceedings under the Act are not maintainable and, therefore, a preliminary issue be framed with regard to maintainability of the proceedings. Such petition filed by all the allottees before the Estate Officer having been rejected, the other batch of cases which were heard along with these two cases were filed. This is the reason for which these two writ applications have been dealt with separately. Such petition filed by all the allottees before the Estate Officer having been rejected, the other batch of cases which were heard along with these two cases were filed. This is the reason for which these two writ applications have been dealt with separately. In these two writ applications the following questions are raised for adjudication: 1) Within the HAL Township, there is no private land available where the members of the Association can construct their respective houses and run the business. 2) Sufficient number of quarters are available for allotment to the officers of HAL and, therefore, there is no necessity to evict the members of the Association. 3) Other private individuals who are not officers of HAL like employees of Bank, Police, staff of the Engineering College, school teachers and contractors have been allowed to continue in the quarters allotted to them whereas it is only the shopkeepers who have been picked up for eviction. 4) Several officers, who have retired in the meantime are in occupation of the quarters allotted to them, but no proceeding has been initiated against the retired employees. 3. On these grounds Shri Ashok Mohanty, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009 and Shri Budhebadev Routray, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Association in W.P. (C) No. 16632 of 2009 submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated by HAL. Shri S. K. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 resisted the petition on the ground that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited as Sunabeda does not have unlimited quarters and because of large number of recruitments made in last few years and the recruitment to be made in future, there is requirement of quarters for allotment to such employees and, therefore, it is necessary to get the quarters occupied by the non-employees and retired employees vacated. According to Shri Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2, in order to meet the defence need of the country, expansion projects have been taken up. For the above purpose, new employees are recruited and several employees of other units have been brought on transfer to meet the requirement of expansion projects. According to Shri Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2, in order to meet the defence need of the country, expansion projects have been taken up. For the above purpose, new employees are recruited and several employees of other units have been brought on transfer to meet the requirement of expansion projects. In view of the above, during 2007-08 about 800 employees had been recruited in the Engineering Division of Sunabeda and several others have been brought to Sunabeda on transfer from different units and all these employees are to be provided with quarters. In order to accommodate them, it became necessary to cancel the allotment made in favour of not only the members of the Association but also other non-employees and the retired employees, Though a stand was taken by the petitioners that it is only the members of the Association, who have been picked up for the purpose, it was contended by Shri Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 that not only the members of the petitioners' Association but also others who are not employees of HAL and those who have retired in the meantime have been served with cancellation notices and in the event they did not vacate the quarters under their occupation, proceedings would be initiated for their eviction. The learned Counsel also contended that the members of the Association are not deprived of their livelihood since they are not being asked to vacate the shop rooms allotted in their favour and, therefore, there is no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Undisputedly the quarters under occupation of members of the Association belongs to HAL. The members of the Association are in occupation of quarters allotted to them on payment of rent, electricity and water charges. Since 2003 the license granted in favour of the members of the Association for occupation of the quarters have not been renewed. As it appears the management of HAL wanted the members of the Association to give an undertaking that they would vacate the quarters as arid when required by the management and at the same time it was expressed in the meeting that the eventuality of vacating the quarters may not arise. As it appears the management of HAL wanted the members of the Association to give an undertaking that they would vacate the quarters as arid when required by the management and at the same time it was expressed in the meeting that the eventuality of vacating the quarters may not arise. However, the members of the Association did not agree to give such an undertaking for which the dispute could not be resolved and ultimately letters were Sent cancelling the allotment and requesting the members of the Association to vacate the quarters under their occupation. Having not vacated the quarters in spite of cancellation of allotment, proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated against them for eviction. 5. In course of hearing, attention of the Court was drawn to Annexure-7 of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 16546 of 2009. The said document is a list of quarters allotted to private parties as on 31-12-2009 as well as list of quarters under occupation of the retired employees. From the said list, it appears that 149 quarters are in occupation of the shopkeepers (the members of the Association) out of 925 quarters under occupation of private parties. From the list we find that Officers of Bank, police department, postal department, telephone department, schools, GRIDCO, Insurance Companies, Officers Association, Officers Club, Sports Club, Doctors on contract, Public Prosecutor, Security Services etc. have been allotted with quarters and their presence in the campus of HAL is necessary. The other private persons, who have been allotted with quarters are some contractors, who are executing the work within the Township apart from contract cooks, waiters, Pujaks of two temples. It also appears that large number of employees, who have retired since 2007 are also in occupation of the quarters even after retirement. Referring to the counter-affidavit filed, Shri Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 submitted that not only against the members of the Association but also against the retired employees and some private parties steps are being taken to get the quarters vacated under their occupation. In support of such contention, some cancellation notices have been annexed to the counter-affidavit. 6. In support of such contention, some cancellation notices have been annexed to the counter-affidavit. 6. The question for consideration is as to whether cancellation of allotment in favour of members of the Association and initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 against the members of the Association is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly when the members of the Association came to Sunabeda Township in late sixties, the area was under-developed and no private land within HAL Township was available for occupation by private parties. There was no requirement of large number of quarters for the employees of HAL. Subsequently, with increase of number of employees and shortage of quarters, it became necessary to get the quarters vacated under occupation of private parties in order to accommodate the employees of HAL. There is no dispute that though steps are being taken to evict the members of the Association from the quarters allotted in their favour and cancelled subsequently, no step has been taken or contemplated to be taken to deprive them of the shop rooms which is their source of income. The right to livelihood granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not being taken away since none of the members of the petitioners' Association has been asked to vacate the shop room under his occupation and they are free to run their business in the shop rooms. It also appears from the pleadings of the parties though no private land is available in nearby areas which may be around 6 to 7 k.m. away from the place where the shop rooms are located and, therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to take a plea that it will not be possible to travel 6 to 7 k.m. in a day to run their business within HAL Township. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1786 . In paragraph-6 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: The violation of the right to livelihood is required to be remedied. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1786 . In paragraph-6 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: The violation of the right to livelihood is required to be remedied. But the right to livelihood as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be so widely construed which may result in defeating the purpose sought to be achieved by the aforesaid Article. It is also true that the right to livelihood would include all attributes of life but the same cannot be extended to the extent that it may embrace or take within its ambit all sorts of claim relating to the legal or contractual rights of the parties completely ignoring the person approaching the Court and the alleged violation of the said right. Reference may also be made to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sodan Singh and etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Anr. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1988 . In paragraphs 17, 18, 26 and 36 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations: The right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) on street pavements, if properly regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and for no other use. The right if properly regulated according to the exigency of the circumstances, the small traders on the side-walks can considerably add to the comfort and convenience of general public, by making available ordinary articles of every day use for a comparatively lesser price. An ordinary person, not very affluent, while hurrying towards his home after day's work can pick up these articles without going out of his way to find a regular market. If the circumstances are appropriate and a small trader can do some business for personal gain on the pavement to the advantage of the general public and without any discomfort or annoyance to the others there cannot be any objection to his carrying on the business. Proper regulation is, however, a necessary condition as otherwise the very object of laying out roads to facilitate traffic may be defeated. Proper regulation is, however, a necessary condition as otherwise the very object of laying out roads to facilitate traffic may be defeated. 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. The hawkers though do have the fundamental right to carry on the business of their choice but not to do so on a particular place. They also cannot claim that they must be permitted to trade on every road in the city. If a road is not wide enough to conveniently manage the traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted at all, or may be sanctioned only once a week. Hawking may also be prohibited near hospitals or where necessity of security reasons so demands the right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Clause (6) of Article 19. Observations in AIR 1968 SC 133 that provisions did not authorize municipality to permit stalls to be set up in streets except temporarily not approved. We are, therefore, of the view that by issuing notice of cancellation of allotment of quarters without taking any step for vacating the members of the Association from the shop room does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. So far as discrimination is concerned, we find from the counter-affidavit that steps have also been taken against other private persons, who are in occupation of quarters, for eviction. Though this fact was not brought to the notice at the time of hearing, we find that some teachers, who are in occupation of quarters have approached this Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 5863, 5864, 5865 and 5866 of 2010 challenging the notice issued to them cancelling the allotment of quarters. Some of the retired employees have also been served with cancellation notice. Therefore, there has been no discrimination as alleged by the Association. 8. It also appears that while issuing cancellation notice, HAL had also indicated that in the event the shop owners did not vacate the quarters, there shall be disconnection of electricity and water supply. Challenging the said notice, some of the shop owners had approached this Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 1112 and 1382 of 2009. 8. It also appears that while issuing cancellation notice, HAL had also indicated that in the event the shop owners did not vacate the quarters, there shall be disconnection of electricity and water supply. Challenging the said notice, some of the shop owners had approached this Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 1112 and 1382 of 2009. In the said writ applications also the grounds taken in these two writ applications was taken to the effect that as against 3766 quarters, already 645 quarters are available and, therefore, there is no necessity to evict the shop owners and Anr. ground was also taken with regard to violation of Article 21 of the, Constitution of India. This Court did not entertain the said questions and only observed that the shop-owners shall not be evicted without due process of law. It appears that the question raised in these two writ applications had also been taken in the above writ application, but the Court did not entertain. 9. For the reasons stated above, we do not find the ground taken by the petitioners to be justifiable ground to claim continuance in the quarters allotted to them, and we, accordingly, dismiss both the writ applications. B.K. Patel, J. 10. I agree.