1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS.659 to 667/2011 & 681 to 692/2011 WRIT PETITION NO.659/2011 SUNIL NAIK Cart No.10, Mala, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner Versus (1) UNION OF INDIA Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. (2) STATE OF GOA Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (3) SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (4) CORPORATION OF CITY OF PANAJI Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. (5) ANUPAMA MIRASHI Avinash Nivas, Guirim, Bardez Goa. .. Respondents WITH 2 WRIT PETITION NO. 660 OF 2011 WILFRED NUNES Cart No.160, Near C.I.D. Office, Dona Paula, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner Versus (1) UNION OF INDIA Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. (2) STATE OF GOA Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (3) SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (4) CORPORATION OF CITY OF PANAJI Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. (5) ANUPAMA MIRASHI Avinash Nivas, Guirim, Bardez Goa. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 661 OF 2011 3 SAVITA KUNDAIKAR House No. C-16, 488, Posrem Bhat, Taleigao, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner Versus (1) UNION OF INDIA Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. (2) STATE OF GOA Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (3) SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (4) CORPORATION OF CITY OF PANAJI Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. (5) ANUPAMA MIRASHI Avinash Nivas, Guirim, Bardez Goa. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2011 Antara Shirodkar House No. 1301/A Bondir, St. Cruz, 4 Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner Versus (1) UNION OF INDIA Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. (2) STATE OF GOA Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (3) SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (4) CORPORATION OF CITY OF PANAJI Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. (5) ANUPAMA MIRASHI Avinash Nivas, Guirim, Bardez Goa. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 663 OF 2011 Pedro Pires Kiosk No.18, Opp. CID Office, Dona Paula, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner Versus 5 (1) UNION OF INDIA Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. (2) STATE OF GOA Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (3) SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. (4) CORPORATION OF CITY OF PANAJI Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. (5) ANUPAMA MIRASHI Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.664 OF 2011. Radhabai Karwarkar, Senior Citizen, Cart No.152, Near Kamat Estate, Tonca, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & 6 Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Avinash Nivas, Guirim Bardez, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.665 OF 2011. Babuli Vinayak Naique Borkar alias Shrikant Borkar, Cart No.53, Near Bashik House, St. Inez, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & 7 Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.666 OF 2011. Gopal Kari, C/o. Harishchandra Kurtikar, Opp. Government Quarters, St. Inez, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, 8 Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.667 OF 2011. Babuli Borkar alias Suresh Borkar, Cart No.151, Near Hotel Goa International, Tonca, Miramar, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 9 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.681OF 2011. Tayaba Bi, Cart No.60, Near Gangotri Building Altinho, Panaji Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. …..... Petitioner. 10 Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.682 OF 2011. Alka Shirodkar, Cart No.65, Near Archeology Office, 11 Altinho, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Avinash Nivas, Guirim, Bardez, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.683 OF 2011. Rohidas Volvoikar, Stationary Cart No.4, 12 Near Dalvi Petrol Pump, Opp. Tourist Hostel, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2011. 13 Geeta Bhandari, C/o. Tukaram L. Porob, Cart No.91, Near Joggers park, Altinho, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. 14 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.685 OF 2011. Manikbai Amonkar, Cart No.89, Near Pissurlekar Towers Building, St. Ines, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. 15 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.686 OF 2011. Sanjeev Manerkar Cart No.40, Opp. Suryakant Bldg., Mala, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, 16 Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.687 OF 2011. Angela Piedade De Mello, Cart No.38, Opp. Ajuda Church, Ribandar, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Avinash Nivas, Guirim, Bardez, Goa. .. Respondents. 17 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.688 OF 2011. Rama Naik, Cart No.32, Near Chapora Ferry Wharf, Ribandar, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, 18 Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.689 OF 2011. Sunanda Govekar, Cart No.30, Near Old G.M.C., Ribandar, Panaji, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Avinash Nivas, Guirim, 19 Bardez, Goa. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.690 OF 2011. Shyam Usgaonkar, Cart No.21, Patto, Ribandar, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Avinash Nivas, Guirim, Bardez, Goa. .. Respondents. 20 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.691 OF 2011. Mandar Pilgaonkar, Cart No.31, Near Chorao Ferry, Ribandar, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. 21 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.692 OF 2011. Bharat Hoble, Cart No.22, Patto, Ribandar, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 3. Secretary Urban Development, Secretariat, Goa Legislative Assembly Complex, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Corporation Building, Panaji, Goa. 5. Anupama Mirashi, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. .. Respondents. 22 Mr. Raunaq Rao, Advocate for the petitioners in all the petitions. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.1 in all the petitions. Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 in all the petitions. Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for respondent no.4 in all the petitions. Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for respondent no.5 in all the petitions. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE & U. V. BAKRE, JJ Reserved on : 17 th November, 2011. Pronounced on : 23rd November, 2011 ORDER : (Per A. P. LAVANDE, J.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. All these petitions are being disposed of by common order since the facts and the questions of law involved in all the petitions are almost identical. 2. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs : 23 (A) That this Court also be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction stay the Notice dated 03/10/2011 and all action in pursuance thereof; (B) That this Court also be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction be pleased to grant an order of stay restraining the Respondent Corporation or officials or agents or persons in authority from in any manner evicting the Petitioner by removing or dismantling the cart belonging to the Petitioner by use of brute force or any coercive measures in terms of Notices dated 29/09/2011 and 03/10/2011; (C) That this Court also be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction be pleased to direct the Respondent nos.2 and 3 to undertake the devising of a composite Scheme in terms of the National Policy on Urban 24 Vendors, 2009 and to submit a report to this Court; (D) That this Court also be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction be pleased to direct the Respondent nos.2 and 3 to allot to undertake devising of a composite Rehabilitation Scheme for the purpose of re- location of the Petitioner and similarly placed persons; (E) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses 'A' and 'B'; (F) For such other and further relief that this Court deems fit and proper; (I) For costs. In some of the petitions, the notices are dated 29th September, 2011. 3. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is as follows : The petitioners, who are self employed, are carrying on business at different places in kiosks after obtaining the licences 25 from erstwhile Panaji Municipal Council and respondent no.4. The kiosks have been erected after obtaining permissions from PWD as well as respondent no.4 and the same are registered with respondent no.4. The petitioners have also paid charges in respect of the kiosks from time to time. It is the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.659/2011, 660/2011 and 662/ 2011 that they have valid licences issued by respondent no.4 which are valid till 31st March, 2012. It is the case of the other petitioners that their licences have expired somewhere in the year 2004 or thereabout and the same have not been renewed in spite of repeated visits made by the petitioners to the office of the Corporation and assurances had been given that appropriate action would be taken in the matter. It is further the case of the petitioners that this Court gave certain directions in respect of the kiosks in Writ Petition No.148/1997 to various Municipal Councils and in spite of the said directions, the kiosks of some of the petitioners continued to exist whereas kiosks of some of the petitioners were granted licences much after Writ Petition No.148/1997 was disposed of. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and similarly placed persons were not heard in Writ Petition No.148/1997. It is further the case of the petitioners 26 that in Writ Petition No.517/2008 filed by respondent no.5 herein and others, directions have been given by this Court without giving opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have got electricity connections to their kiosks after obtaining NOC from Panaji Municipal Council/ Corporation of City of Panaji which was created in terms of the City of Panaji Corporation Act, 2002. It is further the case of the petitioners that they have been carrying on business at their respective kiosks after having been granted licences by Municipal Corporation and as such, notices issued by respondent no.4 Corporation directing removal of kiosks from the respective places are patently unsustainable in law and in any case, the petitioners ought to have been given a reasonable time to remove the kiosks. 4. In Writ Petition No.662/2011, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.4 has issued handcart licence in respect of the kiosk for which assistance has been provided by Goa Handicraft Rural and Small Scale Industry Development Corporation Ltd. (in short 'GHRSSIDC'). It is further the case of the petitioner 27 that after obtaining no objection certificate from the Executive Engineer, Division I, PWD, Panaji, the petitioner has obtained electricity connection after installing of kiosks near joggers park at Altinho. It is further the case of the petitioners that in terms of the scheme of National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009 ('the Scheme' for short) it is imperative upon respondent nos.2 to 4 to implement the same in letter and spirit and the action of respondent no.4 in asking the petitioners to remove the kiosks is in violation of the said national policy. It is further the case of the petitioners that unless the modalities for hawking and non-hawking zones are worked out by the Corporation, the petitioners are not liable to be removed from the kiosks. 5. On behalf of respondent no.4, affidavits have been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Corporation, opposing the admission of the writ petitions. It is the case of respondent no.4 that pursuant to the order passed dated 24th February, 2009 in Writ Petition No.517/2008 action has been taken by respondent no.4 since the kiosks of the petitioners are encroachment on footpath/ public street. 28 It is the case of respondent no.4 that the impugned notices have been issued in compliance of the order of this Court dated 24th February, 2009 and in compliance of the duty of the Corporation to remove illegal kiosks from the public streets. 6. Respondent no.5 has filed affidavit, inter alia stating that the action taken by respondent no.4 is in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.148/1997 and 517/2008. 7. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of the petitions reiterated the stand taken in Writ Petitions and made the following submissions : (i) The petitioners have been carrying on business in the kiosks after obtaining licences from respondent no.4 and as such, the impugned notices are patently illegal. (ii) Although in respect of kiosks of some of the petitioners, the licences have expired in the year 2004 or prior thereto, the petitioners are carrying on business for a number of years 29 in the kiosks and they have visited the office of respondent no.4 on several occasions and they have been promised that appropriate action would be taken in the matter. (iii) The petitioners are not liable to be removed from the kiosks unless they are rehabilitated by devising the scheme by respondent nos.2 and 3 in terms of the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009. (iv) The petitioners having carried on business in the respective kiosks for number of years without any action having been taken by respondent no.4, the petitioners have a legitimate expectation that no action would be taken since the petitioners have not been carrying on business illegally, but on the contrary carrying on the business after obtaining the licences from respondent no.4. (v) The bye-laws framed by the Panaji Municipal Council which have been adopted by the Corporation of City of Panaji have not been acted upon for a considerable time and as such, they have ceased to be in force by doctrine of desuetude. (vi) The kiosks of the petitioners having been granted electricity connections, respondent no.4 is not entitled now to 30 contend that the kiosks are liable to be removed by the petitioners. (vii) The petitioners were not heard by this Court before issuing directions in Writ Petition Nos.148/1997 and 517/2008 and as such, the action taken by respondent no.4 without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, is patently unsustainable in law. (viii) In the event this Court is not inclined to entertain the petitions, time be granted to the petitioners to remove the kiosks and/ or to take appropriate steps. In support of the submissions made, Mr. Rao placed reliance upon the following judgments : (i) Municipal Corporation For City of Pune and Another Vs. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and others; (1995)3 SCC 434 (ii) Gainda Ram and Others Vs. M.C.D. and Ors; (2010)10 SCC 715 (iii) Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Ors; 2007(3) 31 Scale 24. (iv) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ram Prakash; (2011)4 SCC 180. 8. Mr. Rao has also cited several authorities in support of his submission that doctrine of legitimate expectation is attracted in the present case. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the same since the petitioners have not laid any foundation in the petition in respect of the plea taken during the course of argument. 9. Mr. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.1 submitted that the kiosks in respect of which licences have been granted to the petitioners are of temporary nature and the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.148/1997 and 517/2008 are binding on respondent no.4 and as such, its action cannot be faulted. Mr. Ferreira further submitted that the guidelines laid down in National Policy do not have force of law and as such, no Mandamus could be issued to enforce these guidelines. 32 10. Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that except for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.659/2011, 660/2011 and 662/2011, the licences issued in favour of the other petitioners have expired and as such they have no locus to file the present writ petitions since they have been carrying on business illegally without obtaining licences from respondent no.4. According to Mr. Dessai, perusal of the notices issued to the petitioners disclose that the Corporation had removed all the kiosks in compliance with the directions given by this Court and the petitioners have been illegally carrying on business in their kiosks without obtaining licences and that too on the public footpath/ road widening area/ abutting the road which is in contravention of the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.148/1997. Mr. Dessai further submitted that the case set up by the petitioners that they have been carrying on business for number of years, has been disputed by respondent no.4 and as such, there is serious disputed question of fact which may not be decided in the writ petitions. Mr. Dessai further submitted that the action of respondent no.4 is in compliance with the directions given by this Court in various Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel further submitted that it was not 33 necessary for this Court to hear the petitioners individually either in Writ Petition No.148/1997 or Writ Petition No.517/2008 and in case the petitioners desired to be heard they ought to have made appropriate applications in the said writ petitions. Mr. Dessai further submitted that in any case, the directions given by this Court, are to act in accordance with law and bye-laws and as such, no prejudice could be said to have caused to the petitioners by not giving opportunity of being heard before passing orders in Writ Petition nos.148/1997 and 517/2008. Mr. Dessai further pointed out that in Writ Petition nos.665/2011 and 667/2011, the licences are not in the names of the petitioners and as such, they have no locus to file the present Writ Petitions. 11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 12. Indisputably, in all Writ Petitions except Writ Petition Nos.659/2011, 660/2011 and 662/2011 the licences have expired. The licences have expired in the year 1998, 2004, 2006 and 2011 34 and as such, these petitioners have no locus to file the present