- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. The petitioner was given a licence to occupy a 8 x 10 area near the first gate adjacent to the bound ary wall of Pandit Deen Dayal Samyukt Chikitsalaya, Civil Lines, Moradabad. It is contended that the allotment order is dated 17 March, 1994. The consideration for the licence is Rs. 160 per month and that the petitioner pays this licence fee regularly.
(2.) THE Public Works Department, the respondent, passed an order to demolish the kiosk of the petitioner after having brought to his notice the fact that this encroachment be removed. THE petitioner did not remove the encroachment within seven days, the time given. Thus, an order was passed that his occupation of the site would not be permitted. THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the quashing of the order dated 9 Decem ber, 1994, Annexure '7' to the writ peti tion. This order is a notice issued to the petitioner by the respondents stating that he has encroached on public land and that he should remove his occupation within seven days failing which it would be removed. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. Their contention is that the petitioner does not have any legal right to occupy public land, particularly, a road; that the land belongs to the Public Works Department and that the petitioner had applied and obtained an allotment as a licence from the Nagar Mahapalika by misleading the authorities; that the petitioner had moved an application before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad to allot the land to him for the purpose of opening a medicine shop. It is further contended in the counter-affidavit that the Administrator of the Nagar Mahapalika after examining the entire aspect made a recommendation dated 6 March, 1985 to the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. The respon dents contend that the petitioner occupies Government land and property and the Government is obliged to keep the road, free from all encroachments. Barring the facts which have been narrated above, the only submission made on this aspect by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an issue whether the land belongs to the Public Works Department or the Nagar Mahapalika, Moradabad. It is further con tended that the Public Works Department does not have any authority to remove the occupation of the kiosk belonging to the petitioner.
(3.) THE submission made by the petitioner is misconceived. What the petitioner occupies is a public road run ning adjacent to a public hospital and next to the boundary wall of it. In several cases, the Supreme Court has already settled the concept of a road that it is meant for pas sage only and not even for facilities. Municipal Board, Mangalaurv. Mahadeoji Maharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1147. In the context of the present case, it is a all too common feature noticed all over the State that there is a creeping encroachment outside State and public hospitals, by persons like the petitioner, who make capital and business out of medicines which the hospitals ought to stock. Encroachment of hospital roads, by kiosks which sell medicines or beverages, instead of the hospital catering to those facilities are encouraged by local ad ministration and at times by the ad ministration of hospital. When such situa tions are attempted to be remedied by a strict administrator by removing encroachments he is embroiled in a misunderstanding of local politics and grafts within the administration.;