ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State who has also filed the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur. 2. The petitioners seek a direction upon the Municipal authorities to stop the illegal construction of public lavatory on Khesra No. 410, Mohalla Pokhra, town Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali and further to demolish whatever constructions have been made. The stand of the petitioners is that a public lavatory for the benefit of the scheduled caste is being constructed on the land belonging to PWD, (at present, Road Construction Department) and no permission of the said Department was taken for the same. The construction of the lavatory greatly affected the petitioners who have been coming in peaceful ownership and possession over Khata No. 317, Khesra Nos. 461 (ka), (Kha), 463, 431 and 459 in the same area where they have their residential houses and shops next to the lands where construction of the public toilets were started, thereby also obstructing the egress and ingress to the said shops. It is submitted that the construction of the public toilet will cut out the petitioners from the main road and create a situation which is unhygienic and in conducive for carrying on business as even the face of the shops will be completely blocked from view. It is also the stand of the petitioners that the land in question has been recorded as a road in the revenue records and thus construction of public toilet thereon would be illegal. 4. It is also stated in the writ petition that an MLC, Rajendra Rai has given amount from MLC fund to the District Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali and this is how from the DDC fund the public toilets in question are being constructed. 5. A number of counter affidavits have been filed in the case. In one filed by the City Manager, Hajipur Nagar Parishad on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 7 to 9, the stand taken is that a public toilet was in existence on the same place and new construction was being made after demolishing the old one. 5. A number of counter affidavits have been filed in the case. In one filed by the City Manager, Hajipur Nagar Parishad on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 7 to 9, the stand taken is that a public toilet was in existence on the same place and new construction was being made after demolishing the old one. The fact of seven shops in existence of the petitioners is also denied referring to the reports of the Amin of the Nagar Parishad and the Anchal Amin, Hajipur dated 3.8.2012 and 30.7.2012 which reports however state that the houses and shops of the petitioners are in the vicinity of the said construction at a distance of about 13 to 20 feet. The stand has further been taken that it is not the Municipal authorities who are making the construction rather the construction is being made through NREP. 6. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the Road Construction Department in which it is stated that the public lavatory is being constructed by the Municipal authorities on the said piece of land and the petitioners’ property is just near the proposed site. On objection by the petitioners the authorities of Municipality did not take the required step and the petitioners filed a complaint by way of letter of request to the Executive Engineer, Vaishali Road Division, Hajipur on 8.2.2010 in which they also attached the letter submitted to the Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur and information about the said illegal construction by the Municipal authorities on the land belonging to the Department. The complaint was submitted to the Officer in- charge, Sadar P.S. Hajipur with a request to stop the illegal construction by the Junior Engineer, Road Division, Hajipur. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that the municipal authorities should have taken the required permission from the Government before they could have proceeded. It is also stated that legal actions have been taken as a result of which said construction has been stopped by the authorities concerned, i.e., the Municipal authorities. 7. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that the municipal authorities should have taken the required permission from the Government before they could have proceeded. It is also stated that legal actions have been taken as a result of which said construction has been stopped by the authorities concerned, i.e., the Municipal authorities. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the fact that the respondent-authorities, whether of the Municipal Corporation or the NREP who are alleged to be making the construction, have acted illegally by doing so on a road belonging to the Road Construction Department without Government permission, the action is also illegal for the reason that it amounts to encroaching upon and obstructing a public road which the respondent-authorities have no right to do in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Binod Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.: 2003 (1) PLJR 396 , in paras 3 and 4 of which it has been held as follows:- “3. Public roads are to be protected. Public roads are not to be congested. Public roads are meant for the purpose of passage only and no other. In this regard the court reminds the State respondents of the decision of the Supreme Court: The Municipal Board, Manglaur Vs. Mahadeoji Maharaj: AIR 1965 SC 1147 . An issue was taken upto the Supreme Court whether three structures could be placed on the flanks of the public road. These structures were at a piayo, library and a statue of Mahatma Gandhi. The Supreme Court negatived the position that nothing will come on the road as it is meant for passage only. 4. Besides, after the amendment to the Constitution by the 73rd and 74th amendment one mandate of the Constitution is very significant. In Article 243ZD of the Constitution of India in matters relating to planning whether within Panchayats or Municipalities, there is an obligation to plan with a concept of ‘spatial planning’. Construction is the antithesis of space. In an urban habitat anything constructed will be planned. In public places it will be a public plan. Buildings and structures have to be spread out under the concept of ‘spatial planning’ as opposed to congestion. The roads of the nation have to take care of the traffic of the future, increasing population and faster traffic. In an urban habitat anything constructed will be planned. In public places it will be a public plan. Buildings and structures have to be spread out under the concept of ‘spatial planning’ as opposed to congestion. The roads of the nation have to take care of the traffic of the future, increasing population and faster traffic. The flanks of the main, which are part of it will need to be wider for the safety of the pedestrians. Thus, public roads are to be kept free from encroachment.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to show how the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench does not apply to the facts of the present case. 9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that although the respondent-authorities appear to have denied as to the actual agency which is involved in construction of the public toilet contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Binod Prasad Singh’s case (supra) but it is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5 for the Road Construction Department that the illegal construction has been stopped. However, the matter could not end there and the authorities would be obliged to remove whatever construction has been made of the lavatory from the aforesaid public road within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid directions.