JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the opposite party No.2 in the matter of eviction from the place of their business and seeking a direction from this Court to the opposite party No.2 not to evict the fish traders from the existing place of their business. 2. Facts and reliefs sought for being common in all the cases, all cases are decided together with a common hearing by the learned counsels appearing in all the matters. Common facts as reveals that the petitioner in the first case being the market association filed the writ petition covering all its members and the petitioners in rest of the cases are fish traders carrying on fish business individually in the Kamapali Fish Market since more than a decade. 3. Challenging the illegal action of non-allotment of shop room in the market complex, some fish traders in the year 1999 through their association filed O.J.C. No. 1438 of 1999, which writ petition was disposed of by order dated 1.10.2009 directing the Municipality to consider the case of all tenderers including the tenders to be submitted by the Members of the Petitioner’s Association and the Municipality was also directed to grant lease/license in accordance with law, but however, subject to the fish traders clearing their arrear dues. It is on the basis of above direction, tenders submitted by the fish traders including the petitioners in the 2nd writ petition onwards were selected and were thus allotted specific shop complexes in the place made for that purpose. 4. It is alleged by the petitioners that while they were continuing their business of selling fish along with the other members of the petitioner Association in the first case carrying sale of chicken and other materials, the Association involved in the first writ petition was orally noticed by the opposite party no.2 on 9.1.2012 to vacate the shop premises, which was being used by them. On their raising objection, the Association and the members including the petitioners in the other writ petition were intimated that the notice of eviction has already been published in the Odiya newspaper namely ‘The Samaj’ on 29.12.2011 and therefore, there was no requirement of giving a further notice of eviction of these people. On their raising objection, the Association and the members including the petitioners in the other writ petition were intimated that the notice of eviction has already been published in the Odiya newspaper namely ‘The Samaj’ on 29.12.2011 and therefore, there was no requirement of giving a further notice of eviction of these people. Alleging that the opposite party No.2 is taking action for forcible eviction of the members of the petitioner’s Association in the first case including the petitioners in the rest of the cases, the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking relief by way of a direction against the opposite party No.2 for not evicting these people. 5. In assailing the action of the opposite party No.2 in a common argument, learned counsel for the petitioners in different cases submitted that by the illegal action of the opposite party No.2 there has been violation of the petitioners’ right under Article 19(G) and 21 of the Constitution of India and by their eviction, the petitioners are all going to lose their livelihood as sale of business was only source of their livelihood. It is also contended that the opposite party No.2 cannot evict the petitioners without following due process of law. 6. In his opposition, Sri A.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Berhampur Municipality while objecting the allegation of the petitioners filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit and contended as follows :- (A) Due to the trade/business of fish, dry-fish, chicken & mutton, the entire market complex, public road leading to various Offices, i.e., Court premises, Govt. Offices are filled up by rotten remittance of butchered animals, dressed fish and poultry. (B) The road and drains are chocked with rotten remittance of animals, chicken & fish, extending up to the Court campus of Berhampur, besides the fact of traffic conjections. (C) Carcasses of dying chicken, goat, storing of chicken, storing of chicken, storing of fish/dry-fish in the market at Kamapalli is posing serious threat to public health and grave concerned to the environment. (D) Due to the business of fish, chicken, dry fish & mutton etc., the waste are lying around the road/adjacent to the Court campus and has made the area including the Court campus and the road leading to various Office complex totally unapproachable. (D) Due to the business of fish, chicken, dry fish & mutton etc., the waste are lying around the road/adjacent to the Court campus and has made the area including the Court campus and the road leading to various Office complex totally unapproachable. (E) Several requests/objections have been received from various authorities/individuals and the local Ganjam Bar Association with regard to shifting of the fish market from Kamapalli area to avoid health hazards and environment pollution in the locality. (F) The right to trade and business subject to reasonable restriction under Article-19(6) and the public interest prevails over the private interest. (G) The Permanent Lok Adalat for public utility services in PLA Case Nos. 16, 19 & 31 of 2011 has passed an order on 28.02.2012 to shift the fish, chicken & mutton market from the side. 6. Besides the above, Sri Choudhury, learned counsel also contended that considering the request of the local inhabitants and looking at the inconvenience created by this traders in the locality, a conscious decision has been taken at appropriate level for providing a proper place for conducting the sale of fish, chicken etc. so as to avoid the nuisance and the pollution hazard in the locality and it is in this process a request was made to the Government. The Government in their consideration allotted the place earmarked for having a permanent construction to provide space to the venders including the petitioners for selling of fish, chicken etc in the earmarked places which is also to be guarded and checked by the Municipal Authority from time to time. It is further submitted that the place earmarked for above transaction, will avoid not only the pollution hazard but also the traffic congestion in the locality and further it is also in obedience to the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide Annexure-A/2 & B/2 for shifting the fish market and for maintenance on certain conditions. It is further submitted that the place earmarked for above transaction, will avoid not only the pollution hazard but also the traffic congestion in the locality and further it is also in obedience to the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide Annexure-A/2 & B/2 for shifting the fish market and for maintenance on certain conditions. Sri Choudhury, learned counsel for the Municipality also in relying upon the decisions reported in 2004 (AIR) SCW 1652 and a Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 2010 (NOC) 241 (M.P.) submitted that the opposite party No.2’s case is well covered by the aforesaid decisions and further by showing a photograph of the market complex newly constructed for the purpose, further submitted that the opposite party No.2 has already spent lot of money by bringing out a well decorated shopping complex for sale of fish, chicken etc. in an organized and disciplined way and further facilitating the Municipality to have a clear check and compliance facility. 7. Mr. B.N. Mohanty, learned counsel for the interveners contended that since the running of fish market as well as chicken market in a place creates pollution hazard for the disorderly maintenance of the area by the traders, Municipality should be directed to take into consideration the inconvenience of the local people in the matter of traffic congestion as well as the pollution hazards and further in implementation of such scheme, the Municipality should also be compelled to adhere to the conditional directions passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in a judicial process. 8. Learned State Counsel on the other hand, on his appearance submitted that considering the grievance of the local people, looking to the request of the Municipality for providing an appropriate place and keeping in view the local inconvenience and traffic congestion, the Government in its appropriate Department has taken a conscious decision in providing the place presently to locate such traders. Upon allotment of particular area the Municipality has already spent a lot of money in bringing a soft atmosphere and the shops are ready to accommodate the traders including the petitioners. In some and substances, learned State Counsel justified the action of the Municipality and requested for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Upon allotment of particular area the Municipality has already spent a lot of money in bringing a soft atmosphere and the shops are ready to accommodate the traders including the petitioners. In some and substances, learned State Counsel justified the action of the Municipality and requested for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Considering the above submissions made by the respective parties and the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds all the petitioners were having their trade in an area allotted by the Municipality. Considering the grievance of the local people particularly in the matter of pollution hazards for the huge volume of garbage created by the fish, chicken traders and further for having such number of fish as well as chicken market in the locality, which ultimately was also creating traffic congestion in the locality, the Government in its appropriate Department involving the Public Officers at higher level has taken a conscious decision for shift of the traders from the existing place to a new well organized place. Upon allotment of particular area, the shop rooms have also been constructed in a manner to keep the area away from pollution hazards and traffic congestion as well. Further to avoid the traffic congestion in the locality and looking to the pleadings of the opposite party No.2 as well as the State Authorities and further looking to the photographs presented in Court by the opposite party No.2, this Court is of the view that the present place of accommodation for the traders will be definitely a better accommodation than the earlier one. Further since the traders are mere licensees and the decision has been taken not only in their interest but also in the larger interest of the local public. Keeping in view the traffic congestion as well as the public inconvenience from the environment point of view, petitioners having no right, cannot set conditions in the matter of setting up of market complex. Since all the petitioners are to be accommodated in the new place of shifting, they cannot have any objection in this regard, as their trade will verymuch continue. Since all the petitioners are to be accommodated in the new place of shifting, they cannot have any objection in this regard, as their trade will verymuch continue. Looking to the observations made by the Permanent Lok Adalat, this Court finds taking into consideration the allegations made in the PLA Case No.16/11, 19/11 & 131/11, the Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat, Ganjam, Berhampur taking into consideration several issues and suggestions given from different corners arrived at a terms of settlement under Section 22-C(7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the terms settled therein reads as follows:- (i) To shift the fish market from the present site to maintain sanitation and to avoid health hazard in the locality. (ii) Till the process of shifting is completed, Berhampur Municipal Corporation shall motivate the traders to maintain sanitation of highest standards. The trade license of the defaulters shall be cancelled for public good. (iii) Berhampur Municipal Corporation shall regularly take up massive sanitation drive twice or thrice a day to maintain public sanitation. The Health Officer, Berhampur Municipal Corporation shall regularly supervise the cleanliness drive. (iv) Berhampur Municipal Corporation shall take up effective steps regularly for safe disposal of leftover carcasses of animals including waste from road side slaughtering points, alongwith other biodegradable solid waste from fish market including meat and poultry stalls. (v) Berhampur Municipal Corporation shall take up all effective measures including penal actions against butchers at Kamapalli fish market who are indulged in road side slaughtering of animals. This practice should be stopped with immediate effect to maintain sanitation at large. The butchers should be advised to use slaughter house for all purposes. (vi) The Berhampur Municipal Corporation shall take up special repairing of drains and road to avoid puddle filled condition and stench. Terms Added on 17.02.2012 on consent of the parties:- (vii) Suggestions made in Advocates Committee are to be complied in good faith by the parties to the application. This apart, the Permanent Lok Adalat has also given some other directions to maintain the environment in the locality. The action of the opposite parties also further to be in consonance of the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in the aforesaid cases which has attained its finality for its not being challenged in any higher forum. 10. This apart, the Permanent Lok Adalat has also given some other directions to maintain the environment in the locality. The action of the opposite parties also further to be in consonance of the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in the aforesaid cases which has attained its finality for its not being challenged in any higher forum. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances and the observations made hereinabove and further looking to the direction already contained in the settlement process before the Permanent Lok Adalat and recording the submission of the petitioners that they are agreeable to shift their trade to the newly constructed shop room at least within a month time from the date of communication by the opposite party No.2 intimating each of the traders regarding allotment of particular shops in their favour, this Court while declining to grant the relief in favour of the petitioners in the writ petitions, makes the following observations for compliance of both the parties. (1) Within seven days of receipt of this order, the opposite party No.2 shall intimate the petitioners in the 2nd writ petition and onwards and the members of the petitioners’ Association in the first writ petition intimating the allotment of particular shop in the newly constructed area in their favour by a written communication and upon petitioners’ giving undertakings by way of affidavit to the opposite party No.2 for accommodating them at least for three weeks from the date of such communication, the opposite party No.2 shall do well in granting the parties involved in the aforesaid writ petitions at least three weeks thereafter to enable them to shift to the new place of area of allotment. In absence of affidavit, the traders, if any, continuing in the old area will be treated as encroachers and the opposite party No.2 will have all the rights to evict those persons and clear the area. 11. This Court also records the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the area is going to be vacated by way of eviction of the members of the petitioners’ Association in the 1st case and the writ petitioners in the other cases will also be vacated and the area will not be utilized for any commercial purposes. 12. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the directions contained hereinabove.