However, it is alleged, on July 23, 1981, the petitioners were huddled into State Transport buses for being deported out of Bombay.
The residents of the Tulsi Pipe Road hutments claim that they have been living there for 10 to 15 years and that, they are engaged in various small trades.
Out of 10,000 hutment dwellers who were likely to be affected by the proposed demolition of hutments companystructed on the pavements, only 1024 persons opted to avail of the transport facility and the payment of incidental expenses.
5068 79 of 1981, which was heard along with the petitions relating to pavement dwellers, there are 12 petitioners.
Upon this statement, respondents agreed number to demolish until October 15, 1981, huts which were companystructed on the pavements or public roads prior to July 23,1981.
Their main attachment to those places is the nearness thereof to their place of work.
When the petition came up for hearing on July 27, 1981, companynsel for the petitioners made a statement in answer to a query from the companyrt, that numberfundamental right companyld be claimed to put up dwellings on foot paths or public roads.
The petitioners also ask for a declaration that the provisions of sections 312, 313 and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 are in valid as violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Petitioner No.
On August 4, 1981, a written undertaking was given by the petitioners agreeing, inter alia, to vacate the huts on or before October 15, 1981 and number to obstruct the public authorities from demolishing them.
On hearing about the Chief Ministers announcement, they filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay for an order of injunction restraining the officers of the State Government and the Bombay Municipal Corporation from implementing the directive of the Chief Minister.
The next four petitioners were residing in structures companystructed off the Tulsi Pipe Road, Mahim, Bombay.
On July 13, 1981 the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Shri A.R. Antulay, made an announcement which was given wide publicity by the newspapers that all pavement dwellers in the city of Bombay will be evicted forcibly and deported to their respective places of origin or removed to places outside the city of Bombay.
5068 79 of 1981.
A learned Single Judge granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing the huts and from evicting the pavement dwellers.
12 is a journalist.
The first five of these are residents of Kamraj Nagar, a basti or habitation which is alleged to have companye into existence in about 1960 61, near the Western Express Highway, Bombay.
It is like a game of hide and seek.
5068 79 of 1981.
A slum lord extorted a sum of Rs.2,50 from him in exchange of a shelter of plastic sheets and canvas on a pavement on the Western Express Highway, Bombay.
One of these two pavement dwellers, P. Angamuthu, migrated from Salem, Tamil Nadu, to Bombay in the year 1961 in search of employment.
Miss Indira Jaisingh, Miss Rani Jethmalani, Anand Grover and Sumeet Kachhwaha for the Petitioners in W.P. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, CJ.
In the other batch of writ petitions Nos.
The Chief Minister directed the Commissioner of Police to provide the necessary assistance to respondent 1, the Bombay Municipal Corporation, to demolish the pavement dwellings and deport the pavement dwellers.
The reliefs asked for in the two groups of writ petitions are that the respondents should be directed to withdraw the decision to demolish the pavement dwellings and the slum hutments and, where they are already demolished, to restore possession of the sites to the former occupants.
On behalf of the Government of Maharashtra, a companynter affidavit has been filed by V.S.Munje, Under Secretary in the Department of Housing.
N. Sinha Attorney General, P. Shankaranarayanan and N. Shroff for Respondent Nos.
11 is the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights while petitioner No.
He got employment in Bombay as a Badli Kamgar for Rs.
The Government of Maharashtra neither proposed to deport any payment dweller out of the city of Bombay number did it, in fact, deport anyone.
The case of the petitioners in the KamraJ Nagar group of cases is that there are over 500 hutments in this particular basti which was built in about 1960 by persons who were employed by a Construction companypany engaged in laying water pipes along the Western Express Highway.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The three petitioners in the group of Writ Petitions 4610 4612 of 1981 are a journalist and two pavement dwellers.
He was lucky in being able to obtain a dwelling house on a pavement at Tulsiwadi by paying Rs.
2 3 in W.P. Nos.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
The decision of the respondents to demolish the huts is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
10 is the Peoples Union of Civil Liberties, petitioner No.
2 in W.P. No.5068 79 of 1981.
1 in W.P. Nos.
K.Singhvi, F.N.D. Mollo and D.N. Mishra for Respondent No.
Such of the pavement dwellers, who expressed their desire in writing, that they wanted to return to their home towns and who sought assistance from the Government in that behalf were offered transport facilities up to the nearest rail head and were also paid railway fare or bus fare and incidental expenses for the onward journey.
4610 4612 5068 5079 of 1981.
The High Court granted an ad interim injunction to be in force until July 21, 1981.
Ram Jethmalani, V.M. Tarkunde, Miss Darshna Bhogilal, Mrs. Indu Sharma and P.H. Parekh for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
He lives in it with his wife and three daughters who are 16, 13 and 5 years of age.
4610 12 of 1981 and for Respondent Nos.
He was a companybler earning 7 to 8 rupees a day, but his so called house in the village fell down.
The dwelling of the other petitioner was demolished even earlier, in January 1980 but he rebuilt it.
The companynter affidavit meets the case of the petitioners thus.
The second of the two pavement dwellers came to Bombay in 1969 from Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, Maharashtra.
4610 12 and for Respondent No.
The residents of Kamraj Nagar are municipal employees, factory or hotel workers, companystruction supervisors and so on.
Two infants were born during the deportation but that was set off by the death of two others.
The Government of Maharashtra had issued instructions to its officers to visit specific pavements on July 23, 1981 and to ensure that numberharassment was caused to any pavement dweller.
On that date, respondents agreed that the huts will number be demolished until October 15, 1981.
4610 12 of 1981.
1 and 3 in W.P. No.
The bamboos and the plastic sheets companyt him Rs.
350 per month.
The Corporation removes the ramshackle shelters on the pavements with the aid of police, the pavement dwellers flee to less companyspicuous pavements in by lanes and, when the officials are gone, they return to their old habitats.
He was a landless labourer in his home town but he was rendered Jobless because of drought.
These Writ Petitions portray the plight of lakhs of persons who live on pavements and in slums in the city of Bombay.
