- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondents before us were parties to an earlier proceeding in this court being Writ Petitionno. 657 of 1986 and had in terms of the directions of the court dated 2/05/1986 given undertaking to the court that they shall remove the handcarts, cabins etc. on or before 31/12/1986, and the undertaking would be subject to the provision made in clause 2 of the order, namely that they will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in respect of location of the area or the place in the trading zones where the petitioners and other hawkers will be permitted to carry on their trade in the final scheme.
(2.) After the said order of this court, schemes were framed and finalised when the High court approved the same. On the plea that the provisions in the scheme are not being worked out appropriately and the respondents have not been provided suitable places within the hawking zone, the respondents approached the civil court and obtained an order of injunction.
(3.) We are of the view that it was an attempt to thwart the scheme by approaching the civil court. It is an abuse of process of the court and gives rise to a situation where contempt action should lie. We, however, do not propose to take such action, but consider it very appropriate and in the interest of justice to direct dismissal of the suit itself. By this order of ours, the said suit being No. 1761 of 1989 in the court of VIth Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Vadodara shall stand dismissed and all interlocutory orders made therein shall stand dismissed. We, however, would like to record the assurance given to us by counsel for the Municipal Corporation that within a week from the date of application, appropriate hawking licences in the hawking zones shall be issued by the Municipal Corporation upon applications being made for such licences.;