JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J.: Though the position of the petitioners involved in above series of cases are different but question involved and relief claimed by the parties being similar I have decided all these matters together. There is also no objection from the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in the above matter for taking up the cases together. Learned counsels for opposite parties i.e. State of Odisha, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, OMFED and OPOLFED also submits that they have almost a common response in all the above matter hence matters referred to hereinabove are disposed of by this common judgment. (2) The cases involve 7 categories of petitioners such as : (A) Selected as Authorized Agent by OMFED for home delivery of OMFED Milk and Milk Products through Mobile vending. (B) Selected by Municipal Corporation in the matter of OMFED, P.C.O., Flower Kiosk, OPOLFED and allotted particular area by Municipal Corporation itself. (C) Allotted with specific area from Government land in the matter of OPOLFED, OMFED, P.C.O. (D) Appointed as agents for selling of OMFED Milk and OMFED Products through private booth near particular places on their own agreement. (E) Only engaged as retail agents of OMFED and OPOLFED with no allotment of area anywhere. (F) Allotment by the B.M.C. in vending zone. (G) Booths allotted by OMFED / OPOLFED 3. Writ petitions falling to different categories: A-MOBILE VENDING WP (C) Nos.-17040/2011, 10859/2011, 32773/2011, 31994/2011, 33193/2011, 13358/2012, 17288/2012, 3616/2012, 1320/2012, 25672/2013, 11763/2013, 12999/2013, 13000/2013, 26447/2013, 4430/2014, 11559/2014, 9065/2014, 15538/2014. B-ALLOTMENT BY BMC (FLOWER KIOSK/OMFED/OPOLFED/P.C.O) WP(C) Nos.-2738/2012, 24189/2011, 7022/2012 C-ALLOTTED WITH G.A. DEPARTMENT LAND WP(C) Nos.-12473/2009, 11344/2009, 18720/2009, 12474/2009, 8190/2011, 32943/2011, 8306/2011, 17910/2011, 31608/2011, 9211/2012, 14835/12, 10457/2012, 18968/12, 9013/2012, 6359/12, 4158/2012. D-AGENT THROUGH PRIVATE BOOTH/LAND WP(C) Nos. – 12557/2012, 15869/13 E-Only to ACT AS RETAIL AGENTS WP(C) Nos.-13845/2009, 5124/2012, 3159/2012, 13397/2012, 20637/2012, 1671/2012, 15543/2012, 3615/2012, 1424/2012, 11558/2014, 15142/2009 F-VENDING ZONE BY BMC WP(C) Nos.-15166/2012, 12998/2013 G -ALLOTTED BY OMFED/OPELFED WP(C) Nos.-5482/2012, 23921/2012, 122/2012 (i) Cases falling to “(A)” category are that they are all appointed as Mobile vendors by OMFED. Municipal Corporation is collecting the license fee for their running such business their possession being found unauthorized, the Municipal Corporation took up the matter concerning the unauthorized stall owners and passed a resolution to submit a proposal to the General Administration Department for regularisation of the same. Such proposal is pending consideration in the G.A. Department. Municipal Corporation is collecting the license fee for their running such business their possession being found unauthorized, the Municipal Corporation took up the matter concerning the unauthorized stall owners and passed a resolution to submit a proposal to the General Administration Department for regularisation of the same. Such proposal is pending consideration in the G.A. Department. The petitioners in this category are verbally threatened with eviction from their sites. Hence they have filed writ petitions independently. (ii) Cases falling to “(B)” category submitted that they have been allotted with particular booth by Municipal Corporation and further engaged by the OMFED, OPOLFED and Telecom Agencies as the case may be Municipal Corporation is collecting the license fee in respect of them and they alleged that in spite of Municipal Corporation’s proposal and in spite of intervention of the G.A. Department in the matter, their cases have not been regularised, on the other hand they have been verbally threatened with eviction hence they have approached this Court by filing writ petitions. (iii) Petitioners in cases falling to “(C)” category, alleged that they have been allotted with temporary permission for installation of P.C.O/ S.T.D booth, OPOLFED, OMFED respectively over particular Government land. This category also submits that in spite of development through the Municipal Corporation referred to hereinabove, their cases have not been regularized and in the meanwhile they are verbally threatened with eviction in the garb of beautification of the city. (iv) Cases falling to “(D)” category, this category consists of persons being engaged by the OMFED for running their OMFED related business from private land. This category also alleges that the Municipal Corporation is collecting the license fee from them. They further allege that in spite of decision of the Municipal Corporation submitting a proposal to the G.A. Department, to accommodate even unauthorized stall owners they have not been regularized and there is oral threat for eviction of these people. (v) Cases falling to “(E)” category this category belongs to person(s) who have only been engaged as agents and have not been allotted with any site or reference to any site but running such business from some Government sites. Even though Municipal Corporation has taken into account such unauthorized construction but their cases have not been regularized and they are threatened with verbal eviction. Even though Municipal Corporation has taken into account such unauthorized construction but their cases have not been regularized and they are threatened with verbal eviction. (vi) Cases falling to “(F)” category, where a some persons filed the writ petition claiming to have been allotted shop rooms in vending zone near Xavier. They also alleged that Municipal Corporation is making attempt for their eviction for shake of beautification of the city and their cases should also be considered for rehabilitation. (vii) Cases falling to “(G)” category this is a group allotted sites by OMFED and OPOLFED and claims for regularisation under the resolution of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation as indicated hereinabove. (3) There is a common set of argument in respect of all the different categories mentioned hereinabove that they are all continuing in their business over a long period of time, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation collects license fee from each of them regularly. Some fees are also being collected by the agency through which they are dealing such as OMFED, OPOLFED as the case may be. Many of them have got electric connection as well as water connection to their stalls may be authorized or unauthorized which are fixed in nature, Municipal Corporation made a survey in the year 2005 and has taken note of existence of about 436 Nos. of OMFED booths, 56 Nos. of P.C.O. booths and 66 Nos. of OPOLFED booths operating inside the B.M.C. area and on scrutiny of the documents available with them, it has already come to record that out of booths referred to hereinabove, different categories there are 131 Nos. of OMFED booths i.e. 97 (B.M.C.) + 33 (G.A.) + 01 (B.D.A.), 56 (P.C.O) booths i.e. 55 (G.A.) + 01 (B.M.C.) & 66 (OPOLFED) booths i.e. 16 (B.M.C) + 50 (G.A.) are allotted booths by G.A. / B.M.C. / B.D.A. and it has also at the same time recorded that out of above 436 Nos. of OMFED booths 305 Nos. of booths even though are unauthorized booths particularly in absence of allotment of any site but all such booths have got permission from OMFED authority and also paying license fees / ground rent to B.M.C. by making a survey, appointed by B.M.C. it also submitted that 416 Nos. of proposed new sites i.e. 149 Nos. of OMFED booths then 141 Nos. of OPOLFED booths and 126 Nos. of proposed new sites i.e. 149 Nos. of OMFED booths then 141 Nos. of OPOLFED booths and 126 Nos. of P.C.O. booths which will be accommodated in the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation area. It is on consideration of the above, the B.M.C. in a proceeding held on 03.03.2006 decided for regularization of all existing OMFED / OPOLFED / STD / P.C.O. booths by allotment / re-allotment / shifting of booths with proper location. In the said meeting, it was also decided to move the G.A. Department in the matter of allotment of sites. Consequently in the said meeting the Land Officer of the G.A. Department was requested to place the proposal before the appropriate authority for necessary approval. (4) Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners alleged that in spite of the above development the matter did not materialize. While keeping this matter pending, they are verbally threatening the petitioners to vacate the shop premises with threat of demolition of the same unless the sites are vacated within a particular period of time. (5) On the basis of the above, learned counsels appearing for different petitioners submit that since the petitioners are earning their livelihood through the alleged shop sites and since the matter has been considered up to a level by the Municipal Corporation, and further being considered by the General Administration Department they should be provided with alternate sites and till availability of such alternate site, they should be allowed to continue at the existing site. (6) On the appearance, learned counsel for the State Government i.e. G.A. Department apart from filing detailed counter objects the move of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners should approach the common law forum before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. While accepting the consideration of the case of the authorize allotees by the B.M.C as well as G.A. Department the learned counsel appearing for the G.A. Department also submitted that existence of the petitioners’ booth over un-allotted sites is illegal for their unauthorized encroachments, they are creating traffic congestion and risk of accident. Collection of dues by OMFED / OPOLFED / Municipal Corporation cannot create a right in favour of the unauthorized stall owners. In respect of the Mobile vendors and retailers. Collection of dues by OMFED / OPOLFED / Municipal Corporation cannot create a right in favour of the unauthorized stall owners. In respect of the Mobile vendors and retailers. It is submitted by the G.A. Department that since they have only been permitted to have the trade through Mobile vending as well as retail system, they have absolutely no right in the matter. Any construction by these categories is wholly unauthorized and showing sympathy to such category will give freeway to such unauthorized encroachers and their cases should be out-rightly rejected. In the counter to the writ petition the G.A. Department while admitting the fact of a decision being taken by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in the meeting convened on 03.03.2006 in the matter of regularization of unauthorized OMFED/ OPOLFED booths, P.C.O booths and the Kiosks inside the B.M.C. area, it also submitted that a joint committee consisting of representative of shops, G.A. Department, B.D.A., B.M.C., OMFED & OPOLFED was constituted to survey such irregular unauthorized booths and suggested their suitable relocation for their necessary. It is based on the above development, Government in its letter dtd.13.08.2008 enclosed as Annexure-A/1, to the counter affidavit of the State Government vested the responsibility of regularizing the unauthorized shop owners with B.M.C. In giving particular specification in respect of placement as well as the size of the shop, it further directed therein that the B.M.C. will finalize the location of all such booths taking in view the beautification of the city and traffic position, taking the opinion of the Commissioner of Police and B.D.A., B.M.C. is to finalize the location of all such booths and to file requisition with the G.A. Department for their giving permissive possession. (7) Similarly, on their appearance, the OMFED authority also filed a counter affidavit supporting the case of the parties in the matter of their being appointed as agents of it in different categories such as trading OMFED materials either through Mobile vending or through the stall situated over the sites allotted either by the G.A. Department or B.D.A. or B.M.C., to trade such materials through their own arranged sites or through their house as the case may be and submitted that since there is a particular type of assignment persons engaged through Mobile vending, privately arranged plots or from their own houses, they had no right to claim anything contrary. But the case of rest category ought to be considered as per the B.M.C. Resolution and G.A. Department Direction. (8) OPOLFED on its appearance chose not to file any counter but during course of argument relied on the submission of the other opposite parties. (9) B.M.C. on its appearance filed counter While submitting that the cases involve disputed question of fact alleged that in many cases the stall owners have deviated the conditions attached in the agreement. Even though submitted that BMC has never assured any stall owner at any point of time but in none of its counter has neither denied the existence of BMC Resolution dated 03/03/2006 (Annexure-5 in W.P. (C) No. 25072/13) nor denied the existence of office order dated 13/08/2008 (Annexure-A/1 in W.P.(C) No. 25072/13) being passed by the General Administration department. (10) Bhubaneswar Development Authority by participating in some of the writs filled a counter affidavit inter alia contained that, the writ petition involves many disputed question of facts. The claim of the petitioners revolves around the terms and conditions of contract in question, interpretation of which may not be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Bhubaneswar Development Authority also alleged that some of the petitioner have violated the terms and conditions contained in the agreements. It also submitted that the petitioners having agreed to remove their stalls/kiosks as and when necessary cannot claim otherwise on the other hand relied on the stand taken by B.M.C. and G.A. Department. (11) There is no dispute at Bar that some of the booths are unauthorized where as some of them are also authorized. There is also no dispute that Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation as well as the G.A. department have proceeded in the matter of regularization of structures by way of alternate arrangement to some extent. (12) Coming to the petitioners appointed as agents by OMFED and OPOLFED covered under the category ‘A’ ‘D’ & ‘E’ they have been specifically engaged as agents for home delivery of OMFED Milk, Milk-made products and OPOLFED products through Mobile vending through their own system may be from their Home at a particular place. Such engagements were also made with specific condition that these types of agents will abide by the terms and conditions by the federation from time to time. Such engagements were also made with specific condition that these types of agents will abide by the terms and conditions by the federation from time to time. This being an appointment for home delivery through different mode, these categories had no right to encroach the Government lands and sale through unauthorized stalls. It is not known how the OMFED as well as OPOLFED authority tolerating such clandestine dealings and having trade of their commodities going away from the conditions attached in the agreements / engagement orders. It is made here clear that the petitioners in these categories were never permitted to have unauthorized stalls being constructed over Government lands. (13) Considering the cases falling in category “A” “D” & “E” and taking into view the particular type of allotment in their favour I hold all such allotees are rank encroachers and they have no right to continue over the disputed areas. Consequently, I dismiss the cases concerning the petitioners falling to categories “A” “D” & “E”, however with a direction that in the event any vacant site from amongst the decided / selected booths by the Bhubaneswar Municipality still remains after allotment to persons in category “B” “C” “F” & “G” then petitioners in category “A” “D” & “E” be given preference considering that they are earning their livelihood with particular type of business over years but subject to however their giving an undertaking by way of affidavit with Bhubaneswar Municipality as well as G.A. Department that they are vacating the unauthorized structures within a period of one month from the date of this Judgment and they have in fact vacated such premises within the time assured by each of them. (14) Now considering the cases of the petitioners falling in the categories “B” “C” “F” & “G” as they had all been allotted lands / shop sites by either B.M.C. or G.A. Department or OMFED or BDA or OPOLFED and taking into consideration their cases by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and the G.A. Department as appearing at Annexure- 5 in W.P. (C) No.25672 of 2013 in a proceeding dtd.03.03.2006 and letter dtd.13.08.2008 as appears at Annexure-A/1 to the counter by the State Government (opposite party No.1) in W.P. (C) No.25672 of 2013 respectively, I direct the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation being appointed as the Nodal Agency to forthwith finalize the site selection as well as necessary construction preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of the judgment, complete the process of allotment in favour of the persons falling in above categories within a period of 15 (fifteen) days thereafter. And till such period petitioners falling in the above categories may not be evicted. In view of specific direction, hereinabove I direct the General Administration Department to cooperate the Bhubaneswar Municipal Cooperation in the matter of selection of sites as well as allotment of specific land in particular area and to see that the order of this Court is complied in time specified herein. Since the encroachments or unauthorized stalls create hindrance in the matter of beautification of Bhubaneswar i.e. the capital city, I direct the Chief Secretary to oversee the matter for bringing the matter to a conclusive end in strict terms of this judgment. (15) Under the circumstances while dismissing the writ petitions under category “A” “D” & “E” subject to however the further directions vide para-13 (supra), I allow the writ petitions under the category “B” “C” “F” & “G”. with the direction contained in para 14 (supra) (16) In view of my direction as contained hereinabove, I direct for supply of free copy of the judgment to the learned Additional Government Advocate for his communication to the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha and as well as the Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Odisha for necessary action at their end. (17) Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted to other parties on proper application. However, there shall be no order as to cost.