JUDGMENT B. RAJENDRAN, J. 1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1939 of 2012 on the file of the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in this second appeal. The Plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction restraining the sole defendant/first respondent herein or their members, agents, servants or any one acting on their behalf or under their instructions from in any manner disturbing the plaintiff's business as a hawker in a hand pulled cart in Marina Beach. The trial court decreed the suit, which was reversed by the first appellate Court at the instance of the sole defendant/first respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff/appellant is before this Court with this second appeal. 2. The Plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit contending that he hails from a fishermen community and residing in a hamlet called Ayodhya Nagar, opposite to Marina Beach. According to the plaintiff, he is a physically handicapped person suffering from polio in his left leg. It is also his contention that he participated in various international games and represented India in para Olympics and won various medals. According to the plaintiff, even though he excelled in sports and won various medals, he could not get any employment in government service and he is eking out his livelihood by selling petty articles in the sands of Marina beach in a hand pulled cart. Even though the beach area is under the exclusive control of the Government for the purpose of its regulation and maintenance, the members of the defendant association asserted an exclusive right over the regulation of the vendors in the beach area and used physical force to deter the plaintiff. In fact, on 13.03.2012, the members of the defendant association illegally and unauthorisedly removed the vending cart of the plaintiff and interfered with his business. Even though the plaintiff has given a complaint on 14.03.2012 to the Inspector of Police, Anna Square Police Station, no action was taken against the members of the sole defendant or its association. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the police authorities did not take any action against the members of the defendant association as they are hand in glove with them. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit before the trial court for bare injunction. 3. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the police authorities did not take any action against the members of the defendant association as they are hand in glove with them. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit before the trial court for bare injunction. 3. The suit was resisted by the sole defendant/first respondent herein by filing a written statement. It is the contention of the sole defendant/first respondent herein that the name of their association is Anna M.G.R. Manarparappu Sirukadai Viyabarigal Sangam and not M/s. Anna M.G.R. Memorial Beach Small Shop Vendors Association as indicated in the suit. Therefore, it is contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. It is further defended that the defendant association was formed in the year 1983 to safeguard the interest and welfare of small shop vendors doing business in Marina Beach near the Anna MGR Memorial. Presently, there are 472 small shop vendors who are members in their association. The association is functioning with a lawful object to protect the interest of their members who are small traders for which they are collecting small amount as subscription fee which would be utilized to support the traders if any untoward incident happens to them or their family. According to the defendant, the brother of the plaintiff Thiru. Pandian approached their association and requested to enroll himself as a member. As the plaintiff's brother has got several bad antecedents, his request was rejected by the association. Further, the said Pandian is not carrying on any business in the beach place. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, he has placed his cart in the middle of the pathway used by the common public which caused inconvenience to every one and therefore, the members of the defendant association objected to it. When questioned by them, the plaintiff abused them with filthy language. In this context, the plaintiff's brother given a complaint dated 18.03.2012 against the members of their association and not on 14.03.2012 as alleged. As the complaint was found to be false, the plaintiff and his brother were directed to remove the cart which was placed in the middle of the pathway in the sands of Marina. The Plaintiff is not carrying any business as alleged. The suit was filed with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the members of the defendant association. As the complaint was found to be false, the plaintiff and his brother were directed to remove the cart which was placed in the middle of the pathway in the sands of Marina. The Plaintiff is not carrying any business as alleged. The suit was filed with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the members of the defendant association. The suit filed by the plaintiff is without any merits and therefore it is liable to be dismissed. 4. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Exs. A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, its President Mr. R. Dass was examined as DW1, however, no documentary evidence were marked. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff is a disabled person and he has every right to trade and business as guaranted to him under the Constitution of India. When the business carried on by the plaintiff has been interfered with by the defendant association, he is entitled for the relief of bare injunction. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the sole defendant approached the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the deposition of the plaintiff/appellant as PW1 found that even according to the plaintiff/appellant he had started the petty shop business on 13.03.2012 and on the same date, it was allegedly removed by the defendant association. The first appellate Court, therefore held that when the plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction which is an equitable relief, he has to prove that he is carrying on the business as on the date of filing of the suit. The first appellate Court further pointed out from the evidence of PW1 that he is employed in a bank on contract basis and therefore he could not have carried on any business or trade with a hand pulled cart on the sands of Marina. Accordingly, the first appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and allowed the first appeal. 6. At the time of admission of this second appeal on 19.11.2014, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration viz. Accordingly, the first appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and allowed the first appeal. 6. At the time of admission of this second appeal on 19.11.2014, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration viz. (i) Whether the suit for injunction in respect of Government property is maintainable, especially, it is alleged by a third party that he is managing the very Beach itself? (ii) Whether the Government and Corporation of Chennai are necessary parties? (iii) Whether the decree granted by the trial court can be reversed by the first Appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved the cause of action in the absence of specific ground to that effect taken by the appellant herein? (iv) When the defendant in a suit admits an act allegedly done by him which give rise to the cause of action, based on which the suit was filed, is the plaintiff required to prove the same beyond such admission made by the defendant? 7. While admitting the second appeal, this Court, this Court felt that when it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is carrying on trade or cart vending business in Marina Beach, which is the exclusive property of the Government maintained by the Corporation of Chennai and other instrumentalities of the Government, they are also necessary to be impleaded in this second appeal for proper and just adjudication. Accordingly, this Court, by the order dated 19.11.2014, directed the learned counsel for the appellant to file appropriate application to impleaded the Government of Tamil Nadu, Corporation of Chennai and Commissioner of Police as parties to this second appeal. Accordingly, the counsel for the appellant has filed an application in M.P. No. 3 of 2014 to implead the Government, Corporation of Chennai and the Commissioner of Police and they were suo motu impleaded as parties to this Second appeal as respondents 2 to 4 on 05.12.2014. 8. Let me first deal with the case put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint and the defence raised by the sole defendant in the written statement. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that he was carrying on business in a hand pulled cart in the sands of Marina beach, but he was unlawfully prevented by the defendant from carrying such business. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that he was carrying on business in a hand pulled cart in the sands of Marina beach, but he was unlawfully prevented by the defendant from carrying such business. According to the sole defendant, the association was formed during the year 1983 with an avowed object of securing and protecting the welfare and well being of around 472 small shop vendors, who are their members, doing business in Marina Beach near the Anna MGR Memorial. It is also the claimed by the defendant that their association is collecting a meager amount as subscription fee from their members which is being utilized to support the cause of their members, who are small vendors carrying business in Marina beach. It is the specific case of the defendant that since the plaintiff has placed his cart in the middle of the pathway used by the common public, the members of the defendant association objected to it. However, it was denied that the members of the defendant association have removed the hand pull cart of the plaintiff. In this context, the deposition of DW1 in his cross-examination has to be looked in to. In the cross-examination, DW1 has categorically admitted that (Tamil) Thus, DW1 has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that it is the members of their association who have removed the hand pulled cart of the plaintiff. 9. As regards the right of the defendant association or their members to regulate or control the vendors in the sands of Marina, DW1 in his cross-examination has deposed that (Tamil) It is evident from the deposition of DW1 that he denied the suggestion that their association have no right to prevent any one from carrying on business in the sands of Marina beach. In other words, DW1 asserted a right over a particular area on the sands of Marina beach where only the members of their association would be permitted to carry on any business. 10. With this background, let me analyze the right of the plaintiff or the defendant association or their members to assert a right over regulation or maintenance of the shop on the sands of Marina. The area over which the plaintiff and the sole defendant asserts a right is on the sands of Marina Beach. 10. With this background, let me analyze the right of the plaintiff or the defendant association or their members to assert a right over regulation or maintenance of the shop on the sands of Marina. The area over which the plaintiff and the sole defendant asserts a right is on the sands of Marina Beach. Admittedly, it is a public property over which neither the plaintiff nor the sole defendant can have any right, much less exclusive right. It is for the respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal to maintain, regulate and protect the environment and maintain cleanliness of the beach for the convenience of the general public. In fact, both the trial court as well as the appellate Court ought to have impleaded the respondents 2 to 4 herein as parties to the suit for better adjudication but they failed to do so. More so, no one except the Government has a right to control, regulate or protect the environment and to ensure the cleanliness of the Marina beach. Therefore, I hold that there is no cause of action for filing the suit or the suit itself can be maintained against the sole defendant. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for in the suit, the trial court ought to have dismissed the suit instead of decreeing it. 11. In this context, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 brought to the notice of this Court that already a public interest litigation was filed before this Court in W.P. No. 1916 of 2013 wherein a Mandamus was sought for to direct the respondents therein to pass orders to remove the shops, eateries, fun game gadgets and merry-go-around etc. on the sands of Marina and to maintain the entire length of Marina Beach with utmost cleanliness. In the said writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the Commissioner of Corporation and based on the same, an order dated 02.04.2013 was passed by the first Bench of this Court which reads as follows:- "4. on the sands of Marina and to maintain the entire length of Marina Beach with utmost cleanliness. In the said writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the Commissioner of Corporation and based on the same, an order dated 02.04.2013 was passed by the first Bench of this Court which reads as follows:- "4. Today, the Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Chennai filed a counter affidavit stating that eviction of over 1000 shops temporarily put up over the years in the beach without any permission or license from the Corporation of Chennai is involved and the corporation of Chennai has not allowed anybody to run the business in the beach and has never collected any rent or fees from them and they are all doing business without any permission or license from the Corporation. 5. In Paragraph 7 of the Counter affidavit, it is stated that the Corporation intends to frame a scheme for the beach hawkers without affecting their livelihood and providing certain facilities to the beach users in a regulated manner without affecting the environment and hygiene in an adverse manner. The Corporation of Chennai proposes to regulate the hawkers with a prohibition to put up any permanent structure in the beach area. The Corporation has started enumeration work to identify the hawkers and it requires reasonable time to atleast three months to implement such scheme. 6. In the light of the said stand taken by the Corporation of Chennai in the counter affidavit to show the progress in implementing the scheme to be evolved, the matter is adjourned to 04.06.2013." 12. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 also brought to the notice of this Court that the Public Interest Litigation referred to above was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 10.01.2014. A copy of the order dated 10.01.2014 has also been produced to this Court. In the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the first Bench of this Court, the following paragraphs can be usefully referred to:- "27. The above cited decisions makes it clear that encroachments of public property undoubtedly obstructs and upsets planned development, ecology and sanitation and the public property needs to be preserved and protected and when an encroacher approaches, the Court is required to examine whether the encroacher had any right and to what extent he would be given protection and relief. The above cited decisions makes it clear that encroachments of public property undoubtedly obstructs and upsets planned development, ecology and sanitation and the public property needs to be preserved and protected and when an encroacher approaches, the Court is required to examine whether the encroacher had any right and to what extent he would be given protection and relief. It has been further held that with regard to the providing of alternative accommodation, each case requires examination and suitable direction appropriate to facts and circumstances can be issued. The Honourable Supreme Court of India uniformly held that hawkers and squatters have a fundamental right to carry on business on public streets/places, but the same should be regulated and it is subjected to reasonable restrictions under Clause 6 of The Article 19 of The Constitution of India. 28. In Gainda Ram and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 715 , it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of India that though hawking has been recognised as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, at the same time the right of the commuters to move freely and use the roads without any impediment is also a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and these two apparently conflicting rights must be harmonised and regulated by subjecting them to reasonable restrictions only under a law and such an issue cannot be left to be decided by schemes and which are monitored by Courts from time to time and it has also taken into consideration, the Model Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulatioin of Street Vending) Bill, 2009 introduced by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Property Alievation, Government of India. 29. It has been brought to the knowledge of the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent in W.P. No. 1916 of 2013 that the above said Ministry of the Government of India has formulated a policy namely, National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009, however, it is yet to become a law. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision has taken into consideration the enactment of the above said Bill and granted time till 03.06.2011 so as to enable the Bill be converted into a law by following the constitutional process. 30. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision has taken into consideration the enactment of the above said Bill and granted time till 03.06.2011 so as to enable the Bill be converted into a law by following the constitutional process. 30. In Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Another vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Others, 2013 (4) L.W. 777, the right of street vendors/hawkers came up for consideration and the Honourable Supreme Court of India has taken into consideration its earlier decisions in Gainda Ram case (cited supra) and the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012 and issued the following directions:- "16. For facilitating implementation of the 2009 Policy, we issue the following directions:- (i) Within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments and Administrators of the Union Territories shall issue necessary instructions/directions to the concerned departments to ensure that the Town Vending Committee is constituted at City/Town level in accordance with the provisions contained in the 2009 Policy. For the Cities and towns having large municipal areas, more than one Town Vending committee may be constituted. (ii) Each Town Vending Committee shall consist of representatives of various organisations and street vendors/hawkers. 30% of the representatives from the category of street vendors/hawkers shall be women. (iii) The representatives of various organisations and street vendors/hawkers shall be chosen by the Town Vending Committee by adopting a fair and transparent mechanism. (iv) The task of constituting Town Vending Committee shall be completed within two months of the issue of instructions by the Chief Secretaries of the State and the Administrators of the Union Territories. (v) The Town Vending Committee shall function strictly in accordance with the 2009 policy and the decisions taken by it shall be notified in the print and electronic media within next one week. (vi) The Town Vending Committee shall be free to divide the municipal areas in vending/ hawking zones and sub-zones and for this purpose they may take assistance of experts in the field. While undertaking this exercise, the Town Vending Committee constituted for the cities of Delhi and Mumbai shall take into consideration the work already undertaken by the municipal authorities in furtherance of the directions given by this Court. The municipal authorities shall also take action in terms of paragraph 2(b) and (c). While undertaking this exercise, the Town Vending Committee constituted for the cities of Delhi and Mumbai shall take into consideration the work already undertaken by the municipal authorities in furtherance of the directions given by this Court. The municipal authorities shall also take action in terms of paragraph 2(b) and (c). (vii) All street vendors/hawkers shall be registered in accordance with paragraph 4.5.4 of the 2009 policy. Once registered, the street Vendor/hawker shall be entitled to operate in the area specified by the Town Vending Committee. (viii) The process of registration must be completed by the municipal authorities across the country within four months of the receipt of the direction by the Chief Secretaries of the States and Administrators of the Union Territories. (ix) The State Governments/Administration of the Union Territories and municipal and local authorities shall take all the steps necessary for achieving the objective set out in the 2009 policy. (x) The Town Vending Committee shall meet every month and ensure implementation of the relevant provisions of the 2009 policy and, in particular, paragraph 4.5.1 (b) and (c). (xi) Physically challenged who were allowed to operate PCO's in terms of the judgment reported in (2009) 17 SCC 231 shall be allowed to continue to run their stalls and sell other goods because running of PCOs, is no longer viable. Those who were allowed to run Aarey/Sarita shall be allowed to continue to operate their stalls. (xii) The State Governments, the Administration of the Union Territories and municipal authorities shall be free to amend the legislative provisions and/or delegated legislation to bring them in tune with the 2009 policy. If there remains any conflict between the 2009 policy and the municipal laws, insofar as they relate to street vendors/hawkers, then the 2009 policy shall prevail. (xiii) Henceforth, the parties shall be free to approach the jurisdictional High Courts for redressal of their grievance and the direction, if any, given by this Court in the earlier judgments/orders shall not impede disposal of the cases which may be filed by the aggrieved parties. (xiv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to nominate a Bench to deal with the cases filed for implementation of the 2009 policy and disputes arising out of its implementation. The concerned Bench shall regularly monitor implementation of the 2009 policy and the law which may be enacted by the Parliament. (xiv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to nominate a Bench to deal with the cases filed for implementation of the 2009 policy and disputes arising out of its implementation. The concerned Bench shall regularly monitor implementation of the 2009 policy and the law which may be enacted by the Parliament. (xv) All the existing street vendors/hawkers operating across the Country shall be allowed to operate till the exercise of registration and creation of vending/hawking zones is completed in terms of the 2009 policy. Once that exercise is completed, they shall be entitled to operate only in accordance with the orders/directions of the concerned Town Vending Committee. (xvi) The provisions of the 2009 policy and the directions contained hereinabove shall apply to all the municipal areas in the Country. 17. The aforesaid directions shall remain operative till an appropriate legislation is enacted by Parliament or any other competent legislature and is brought into force. 18. The parties, whose applications have remained pending before this Court, shall be free to institute appropriate proceedings in the jurisdictional High Court. If so advised, the aggrieved parties shall be free to file Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution. 19. All the appeals and I.A.s are disposed of in the manner indicated above. 20. The Registry is directed to send copies of this order to the Chief Secretaries of all the States, Administrators of the Union Territories and Registrar Generals/Registrars (Judicial) of all the High Courts, who shall place the order before the Chief Justice for consideration and necessary directions." In Clause No. XVI of the above said directions, it is stated that the provisions of the 2009 policy and the directions contained therein above shall apply to all municipal areas in the country and in para 17 of the order, it is stated that the aforesaid directions shall remain operative till an appropriate legislation is enacted by Parliament or any other competent legislature and is brought into force. 31. In the light of the above directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision (Maharashtra Ekka Hawkers Union case), this Court cannot issue any fresh direction to the respondents to formulate a scheme with regard to the hawkers/Vendors, who are doing business on Marina Beach and Elliots Beach in Chennai. 32. 31. In the light of the above directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision (Maharashtra Ekka Hawkers Union case), this Court cannot issue any fresh direction to the respondents to formulate a scheme with regard to the hawkers/Vendors, who are doing business on Marina Beach and Elliots Beach in Chennai. 32. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to comply with the directions applicable to them, issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision (Maharashtra Ekka Hawkers Union case), by giving utmost preference as expeditiously as possible. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 13. The learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents also brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the directions issued by this Honourable Court in the Public Interest Litigation mentioned supra, the Corporation of Chennai, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending Act, 2014) has framed the draft Rules of The Tamil Nadu Street Vending (Regulation and Licencing) Rules 2014. As per the provisions of the Rules, a Vending Certificate has to be obtained by the vendor or trader who intend to carry on trade or business in the nature of Street vending within the limits of Corporation or Municipality or Town Panchayat within the State. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Rules are likely to come into force shortly. 14. It is needless to mention that both the plaintiff and the sole defendant has no right, control or interest over the sands of the Marina beach. It is also to be mentioned that neither the plaintiff has any right to carry on business nor the defendant has any right to evict the trader who carries on any business on the sands of Marina Beach, including the plaintiff. It is for the corporation of Chennai, as an instrumentality of the Government, to regulate and maintain the beach area, particularly in the matter of hawking or vending on the sands so as to ensure that the public who visits the beach to enjoy its serene beauty are not put to any inconvenience. It is for the corporation of Chennai, as an instrumentality of the Government, to regulate and maintain the beach area, particularly in the matter of hawking or vending on the sands so as to ensure that the public who visits the beach to enjoy its serene beauty are not put to any inconvenience. In those circumstances, I hold that all the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered against the plaintiff/appellant. Consequently, the second appeal has to be dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of this second appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant will not confer any right to the sole defendant or the members of their association to des it any one from carrying on business on the sands of Marina Beach or to collect subscription or regulate the business carried thereon. 15. Having regard to the submission of the learned Advocate General appearing for the State that regulations have been made to regulate the vendors on the sands of Marina Beach and they are likely to be implemented, this Court directs the official respondents to ensure that no private party should be allowed to take control of the vendors carrying on trade on the sands of the Marina Beach or should be permitted to collect any fees either individually or as an Association for permitting the vendors to carry on business thereof. Such kind of practice by any private individual or association to collect membership fee or any amount as a condition precedent for permitting the vendors to carry on trade on the sands of Marina Beach should be deprecated. This Court only hopes that the Government will take necessary and appropriate action against those individuals who take law in to their own hands in future. 16. In the result, the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court is confirmed. The second appeal fails and it is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.