D. L. MEHTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 11th January, 1989, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge Beawar, setting aside the injunction order granted by the trial court, restraining the defendant Municipality, from selling the land to the non-petitioner defendant Lakhoo Mal and Mohan Lal till the disposal of the suit. Non-petitioners are the victims of the partition of the country and communal fanatism and they have migrated from their motherland to this part of the motherland to save their life at the time of partition. Municipality, Kekri, allotted them on lease a piece of land measuring 9'x5' so that they may put the stall and carried out the business. Since then the stalls are there and the non-petitioner and his son are carrying out the business. Petitioner applied for this piece of land also for the nearby place of the said piece of land and wanted the sale. Municipality, declined to do so and this was stated by Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the non-petitioner. Each system is a mixture not only of socialist and capitalist feature, but also of precapitalist elements, stemming from many different periods of past history. Law cannot be neatly classified in terms of social-economic forces. A legal system is built-up slowly over the centuries, and it is in many respects remarkably imperious to social upheavals. THIS is as true of Soviety Law, which is built on the foundations of the Russian past, as it is also true of English and Europian law with its roots in English and Europian history. American system is based on American history, Russian system is based on Russian history. We have inherited English system which may be good looking to the English needs and their culture. Borrowed coat may not fit just like a coat prepared for a person for his own body. The same principle applies to the legal system, legal jurisprudence which should be based on the Indian past history, Indian in heritage and Indian culture. The system which we are having is passing from the critical time and even the head of the judiciary in his speeches has said that surgical treatment is necessary. Most of us feel that the system needs orientation and it should be based on Indian inheritage, Indian history and Indian culture and also on Indian thoughts. THIS cannot be done and it will take its own time as every judicial system develops, slowly on the foundation of the history of the nation and on the history of the society. The same is the position today about our system which we have borrowed.
(2.) POOR persons who have migrated from Pakistan, were allotted the sard land for running the stall and they are running their stall for the last. 39 years. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2, submits that from his case file he finds that there is a noting, that the refugees have come and the permission should be accorded for the putting of the stall on a piece of land measuring 9'x5'. it is true that the stalls were placed on a land which was a land allotted to them 39 years back. The petitioner is having a fundamental right to carry on the business or trade at a suitable permissible place and for that purpose it is the obligatory duty of the Municipality, to see that this fundamental right is not infringed. Municipality has got a right to regulate the putting of the stalls or the use of the roads by the hawkers, but the total prohibition is generally not expected though the word 'regulation' may be extended even upto the right of denial some time. To regulate the putting of the stall may amount to prohibit the* putting of the stall or use of that piece of land by hawkers for the better convenience of the people at large and to meet the requirements of the traffic. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1) has held as under : "the right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Art. 19 (1) (g.) on street pavements, if properly regulated cannot be denied on the gronnd that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and for no other use. The right if properly regulated according to the exigency of the circumstances, the small traders on the sidewalks and considerably add to the comfort and convenience of general public, by making available ordinary articles of every day use for a comparatively lesser price. An ordinary person, not very affluent, while hurrying towards his home after days work can pick up these articles without going out of his way to find a regular market. If the circumstances are appropriate and a small trader can do some business for personal gain on the pavement to the advantage of the general public and without any discomfort or annoyance to the others there cannot be any objection to his carrying on the business. Proper regulation* is, however, a necessary condition as otherwise the very object of laying out roads to facilitates traffic-may be defeated. Allowing the right to trade without appropriate control is likely to lead to unhealthy competition and quarrel between traders, and travelling public and sometimes amongst the traders themselves resulting in chaos. The hawkers though do have the fundamental right to carry on the business of their choice but not to do so on a particular place. They also cannot claim that they must be permitted to trade on every road in the city. If a road is not wide enough to conveniently manage the traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted at all, or may be sanctioned only once a week. Hawking may also be prohibited near hospitals or where necessity of security reasons so demand the right is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (6) of Art. 19. Observations in AIR 1968 SC 133 that provisions did not authorise Municipality to permit stalls to be set up in streets except temporarily not approved. " Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Firm Pyarelal Satpal vs. Santilal (2), The proposition laid down therein is that the public street vests in Municipality for the purpose of the Act and not for converting it into Bazar, may hold good to some extent even today but this citation has to be in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above. It is not a case in which stall is placed today but it is a case in which the petitioner prays that he should be treated equally and the land which has been given to him on lease for putting a stall should be sold. Municipality, is having a duty to consider the request of the petitioner but the Municipality has failed to do so. Right of equality is there if one hawker or one stall holder gets the regularisation by sale of the land then the same right may accrue to the other person similarly situated. However, it should be made clear that the regularisation encourages the commission of crime and the remedy of regularisation which is generally needed for the public man and the needed down-trodden illeterate masses is not available to them but then a person/who is having money power or the mussle power gets the regularisation. This is a case in which the petitioner claims for genuine consideration and the Municipality should consider the case of the petitioner because the petitioner is having a stall for the last 39 years and it is not a case in which the Municipality, comes with acase that it creats traffic hazards or any other allied matters. In the instant case, the petitioner has also prayed for the sale of the land though it is not on record, though Mr. Choudhary has stated at bar. I would not like to make any observations. However, I would like to make it clear that the non-petitioner is having a genuine cause against the Municipality and to say that the Municipality, is not serving the cause of the poor person but at the same time, it should be added that the submission made by the non-petitioner cannot be taken on its face value, they need examination at a Municipal level with an open mind. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is stopped to agitate the matter or to contest the matter because he has applied for the same piece of land as stated by Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1. The Court below was not justified in passing the order that the Municipality, cannot sale the land to the non-petitioner who are having the stall for the last 39 years. Any encroachment made on the said land can be removed by the Municipality if it needed but no injunction should be issued restraining the Municipality to recall the installation of the stall by issuing an order of sale in favour of the non-petitioner. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such observations, should be made at the time of hearing, it will adversely affect the suit and this court should not usurp the power of this court. I am not convinced with the submissions. Need of the time is that any step in any way or in any form or in any mode should be taken, which may curtail the litigation and we should say good bye to the Saw which is based on the history of the foreign nation by giving it a coat of orientation based on the Indian heritage and culture and this replacement itself will solve the problem. In the result, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as indicated above. There is no order as to costs. . ;