The City Civil Court granted interim injunction.
SLP CIVIL No.
Questioning the same the Corporation has filed the present appeal.
The respondents thereupon filed an appeal in the High Court and also sought interim injunction.
The respondents who are alleged to have made encroachments and who are also companyered by the scheme filed several suits and withdrew them after the High Court gave its final verdict.
Meanwhile on 4.2.92 a rejoinder was filed in which it is stated that the Corporation had offered to the respondents hawking licenses etc.
5465/89 D 3.5.
However, in the instant case numberice was issued and this Court also directed the appellant Corporation to seek any other relief on the basis of the order of this Court in the above S.L.P. Civil number 5465/89.
WITH Civil Application No.
The respondents again filed a suit on 1.10.88 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for directions and injunction.
under the scheme but the respondents are number accepting the same.
It is also stated therein that the respondents were offered four alternative sites in plot No.
393/89 dated 27.9.90 and the interim injunction granted by the High Court stands vacated.
By an order dated 13.9.91 the S.L.P. was adjourned to 15.11.91 for enabling the Corporation to provide alternative suitable sites for the respondents according to the scheme.
The said action of the police public authorities had been challenged by way of a number of petitions in the High Court of Gujarat.
The City Civil Court by its order dated 18.8.89 vacated the interim injunction.
The High Court reconsidered the scheme and by an order dated 7.12.87 held that it is number necessary to further modify the scheme and ultimately the scheme was companyfirmed.
Thereafter the matter was adjourned several times at the request of the companynsel.
Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 3 SCC 528 Olga Tellis v. Bombay municipal Corporation, 1985 3 SCC 544 Baroda Municipal Corporation Sharmjivi Hathlary Association Ors.,
The appellant Corporation filed a reply to the numberice of motion.
The High Court after hearing all the petitioners and following the Judgments of this Court in Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 3 SCC 528 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 3 SCC 544 directed the Corporation to evolve a scheme having regard to the overall local companyditions in the area.
They claimed that their shops are 10 feet away from the public road.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.1990 of the Gujarat High Court in Appeal from Order No.
1117 of 1992.
U. Mehta, Kuldeep Parihar and H.S. Parihar for the Appellant.
Questioning the above said order and judgment of the High Court several special leave petitions were filed and this Court remitted the matter back to the High Court of Gujarat for companysideration of the scheme in the light of certain observations made therein.
1989, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court by its order dated 22.4.87 held that the scheme framed by the Corporation deserves to be accepted subject to certain modifications.
The Judgment of Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. Leave granted Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Corporation for short is the appellant herein and the four respondents are small traders running their businesses in small shops.
According to the appellant Corporation there was a mushroom growth of public street footpath hawkers which affected the traffic and other public amenities and therefore the police public Authorities within the Municipal Corporation area were companystrained to remove the obstructions created by such hawkers after giving them enough opportunity.
2857 of 1989.
393/89.
Ramesh P. Bhatt, Ms. Tanuja Sheel, Ms. Priya Hingorani and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
Again some of the persons aggrieved by the said order of the High Court approached this Court and this Court permitted the hawkers and other similarly placed traders to place their difficulties before the High Court.
