Holding

The removal of the kiosks is justified as a reasonable and germane exercise of the State's power to protect public health and ensure smooth traffic flow.

Summary

The National Association of Educated Self Employed Youth (NAESEY) had installed kiosks within hospital premises and on the margins of busy roads in Madras, Vellore and Tiruppur. The Tamil Nadu government ordered their removal, citing health hazards in hospitals and traffic hazards on main thoroughfares, and offered to consider relocation applications. The Association challenged the evictions as violations of the right to livelihood under Article 21, but the Supreme Court held that the State’s reasons were reasonable, relevant and germane, and that the removals were solely for public health and traffic safety, not to benefit any other party. The Court affirmed that evicted persons may apply for relocation elsewhere, and dismissed all petitions and appeals. Consequently, the State’s action was upheld and no violation of constitutional rights was found.

Issues considered

Whether the removal of kiosks from hospital premises and busy road margins infringes the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the State's reasons for removal constitute a reasonable and germane public purpose.
Whether the evicted persons have any vested right to remain at the locations.
Whether the State must provide alternative locations for the evicted kiosks.

Subjects

Article 21right to livelihoodpublic healthtraffic hazardevictionkioskshospital premisespublic nuisancerelocationTamil Nadu

Judgment

A N. JAGADEESAN ETC.
v.
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NORTH ARCOT AND OTHERS

FEBRUARY 21, 1997

B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21-Right to livelihood-Removal
of only those bunks/kiosks located within premises of hospitals and medical
institutions for causing health hazards-Removal of bunks/kiosks located on
C road margins of only some main busy thoroughfare for causing traffic
hazards-Government also offering to consider applications made by the
evicted persons for making alternative a"angements--Held : Reasons for
removal reasonable, relevant, gennane and acceptable-Hence removal jus-
tified.

D The members of the National Association of Educated Self Employed
Youth (NAESEY) installed bunks/kiosk within the premises of hospitals
and medical colleges and on the road margins in the cities of Madras,
Vellore and Tiruppur in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government of
Tamil Nadu directed the removal of these kiosks from the hospitals and
E medical institutions as they were creating unhygienic condition and were
posing hazard to the health and well-being of the patients and other ·
visitors. The kiosks located on the street margins were sought to be
removed on the ground that they were proving traffic Hazard. The mem·
bers of the Association filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging
the proposed eviction by the Government to be illegal. The High Court
-
F dismissed the writ petitions as well as the writ appeals. The present
appeals are filed by the aggrieved members of the Association against the
orders of the High Court. The Association and some of the members
directly filed writ petitions before this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of the India challenging the action of the Government.
G
Dismissing all the petitions and appeals together, this Court

HELD : 1. The appellants/petitioners can have no legitimate
grievance against the action taken to remove their bunks/kiosks in asmuch
as the removal is confined only to hospitals and medical institutions and
--
H road margins of main thoroughfares, viz., three specified thoroughfares in
340
N. JAGADEESAN v. DISTI. COLLECTOR, NO RIB ARCOT 341

- Madras city. and one each in vellore and Tiruppur. The reasons given by
the State for removing them are reasonable and acceptable. It is also
specifically averred by the State that they are not removing any bunk with
a view to allow some other person to instal a bunk in that place. The
removal is only for the purpose of removal of health hazard or in the
A

interests of smooth and unobstructed flow of traffic. The government has B
also offered to. consider the applications, if any, made by the evicted
persons for locating them on other road margins or premises, as the case
may be. Therefore, it can not be held that the reasons ·assigned by the
Government are neither relevant, nor germane nor is it possible to say that
the reasons are only a make-believe. (344-C-D, HJ

Sadan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989] 3 SCR 1038,
c
referred to.

2. It shall be open to the persons who are evicted to apply to the
appropriate authorities for re-location in other appropriate areas/road
margins and the concerned authorities will consider their representations D
and pass order thereon without any delay.

CIVIL APPELLATE I ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1710 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order date 30.7.87 of the Madras High E
Court in W.A. No. 1987.

With

Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1000, '365/87 and 677 of 1995.
F
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

And

Civil Appeal No. 15'36 of 1997.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.93 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No. 12916 of 1987.

R. Venkataramani for the Appellants.

Rakesh K. Sharma for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 677/95. H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.
J-
A M:A. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent for State of Tamil Nadu.

V. Balachandran for Contemnor in W.P. No. 1000/87.

·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted in the Special Leave Peti-
tion.

A common question arises in these writ petitions and civil appeals.

The National Association of Education Self-Employed Youth
C (NAESEY) is the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 1000 of 1987. The
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1710of1987 and Civil Appeal No. of 1997
(arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20689 of 1993) and the writ
petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 365 of 1987 are members of this
Association. It is stated that this Association was formed under the inspira-
D tion and guidance of Dr. Malcolm S. Adiseshaiah, the then Vice-Chancel-
lor of the Madras University, and with the help of Madras University
Employment Guidance Bureau. The members of this Association have
installed bunks/kiosks within the premises of hospitals and medical colleges .
and on the road margins in the cities of Madras, Vellore and Tiruppur in
E the State of Tamil Nadu. Complaining that they are sought to be evicted
from their premises otherwise than in accordance with law, one of the
members of the Association, N. Jagadeesan, approached the Madras High

-
Court by way of a writ petition. It was dismissed. The writ appeal preferred
)
by him was also dismissed against which Civil Appeal No. 1710 of 1987 is
preferred. A writ petition filed by the Association (Writ Petition (C) No.
F 12916 of 1987) was also dismissed similarly against which Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 20689 of 1993 is preferred. The Association has filed two
writ petitions under Article 32 o{Jhe Constitution, viz., Writ Petition (C) ·
Nos. 1000 of 1987 and 365 of 1987. One of its members, Tmt. Tamilselvi
..
and others have filed Writ Petition (C) No. 677 of 1995 directly in this
G Court. Counters have been filed on behalf of the respondents, according
to which the position boils down to this :
-
'

(1) Insofar as the Kiosks located within the premises of hospitals and
medical institutions in the State are concerned, it is stated that Health and
Family Welfare Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu has
H directed the removal of the said removal of the said bunk/kiosks on the
N. JAGADEESAN v. DISIT. COLLECTOR, NORTH ARCITT (B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 343

ground that they are posing a hazard to the health and well being of the A
patients and others visiting the hospital and the institutions. It is stated that
these bunks and kiosks are creating unhygienic conditions by littering the

- place and that the food items provided by them are also being consumed
by the in-patients and other patients visiting the hospitals which is proving
to be deleterious to their health and treatment. It is also stated that several
persons are gathering around these bunks/kiosks which is interfering with
B
the smooth and peaceful working of the hospitals and other medical
institutions .

. (2) So far as the bunks/kiosks located on the street-margins are
concerned, it is stated that only the bunks/kiosks in three main thorough- C
fan;s in Madras (specified in the counter-affidavit) and one thoroughfare
each in Vellore and Tiruppur are only being removed because they are
proving a traffic hazard. It is stated that these thoroughfares are carrying
very high volume of multimodal traffic ranging from bullock carts to fast
moving vehicles and that having regard to the increasing volume of traffic, D

- it has become necessary to remove these bunks/kiosks and re-locate them
elsewhere. This removal is also necessary, it is stated, for widening the
roads.· In fact, the widening of roads has reduced the width of the footpath
and the existence of bunks/kiosks on such reduced footpath margins is
causing further obstruction in the free movement of the people. It is clearly
stated in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the Government of Tamil E
Nadu that the bunks/kiosks from all the thoroughfares/roads are not being
removed but only bunks/kiosks from certain extremely busy
roads/thoroughfares, as specified in the said affidavits, are being remove.
It is also stated that so far as other roads are concerned, only one or two
bunks/kiosks may require to be removed depending upon the exigencies of F
the situation. Otherwise there has been no removal or attempt to remove
the bunks/kiosks in other road margins or thoroughfares, It is further stated
in P11ra 8 of the common counter, sworn to by N. Radhakrishnan, Addi-
tional Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, that "in respect of
places where the kiosks/bunks are existing, apart from the 3 places men-
tioned above and also in respect of any other place which may be suitable G
for locating the kiosks/bunks, permission would be granted by the con-
cerned department considering the need and other relevant circumstan-
ces". It is, of-course, clarified that "such permission would not also amount
to grant of any unfettered right for the grantee, since it would be purely
temporary and subject to removal if the premises is required for other H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.

· A public purposes". Another statement .contained in the said affidavit is to
the following effect : "there has been no removal or attempt to remove
bunks/kiosks with a view to allow any other person to locate the said
bunks/kiosks in the said place". The above statement in the counter-affidavit ..._
are recorded herewith.
B
We are of the opinion that the appellants-petitioners can have no
legitimate grievance against the action taken to remove their bunks/kiosks
inasmuch as the removal is confined only to (i) hospitals and medical
institutions and (2) road margins of main thoroughfares, viz., three
specified thoroughfares in Madras city and one each in Vellore and Tirup-
C pur. The reasons given by the State for removing them are reasonable and
acceptable. It is also specifically averred by the State that they are not
removing any bunk with a view to allow some other person to install a
bunk in that place. The removal is only for the purpose of removal of health
hazard or in the interests of smooth and unobstructed flow of traffic.
D Indeed, the Government has offered to consider the applications, if any,
made by the evicted persons for locating them on other road margins or '
premises, as the may be.

Sri R. Venkataramani, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed
E strong reliance upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989] 3 S.C.R. 1038. It is
true that the said judgment does recognise that a member of a public is
entitled to legitimate user of the road other than actually passing or re-
passing through it. But this is clarified by the statement that such user shall
p not create an unreasonable obstruction which may inconvenience other
-
persons having similar right to pass. It is also pointed out in the said
judgment that what constitutes pul:ilic nuisance is a question of fact to be
decided in each case having regard to all the relevant circumstances. In

·-
our opinion, by seeking to remove the bunks and kiosks located within the
G hospital premises or within the premises of other medical institutions or
their removal from the road margins of important and busy thoroughfares
in the aforesaid three cities in Tamil Nadu, the respondents are not acting
in any manner inconsistent with the propositions enunciated in the said
·judgment. We are not able to say that the reasons assigned are neither
relevant nor germane nor is it possible to say that reasons given are only a
H make-believe.
N. JAGADEESAN v. DISTI. COLLECTOR, NORTIIARcaf (B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 345

It shall, of course, be open to the persons who are evicted to apply A
to the appropriate authorities for re-location in other appropriate

- areas/road margins and we are sure that the concerned authorities Will
consider their representations and pass orders thereon without any
avoidable delay.

The writ petitions and appeals are accordingly dismissed with the B
above observations. No costs.

. H.K. Petitions and appeals dismissed .

-

--
-