WP(C) 6324/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr JC Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. As Mr G soren, the learned State counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2, no formal notices are called for. With the consent of both the counsel, this writ petition is being heard today and is being disposed of at the motion stage. The facts are disputed. The petitioner was granted permission to constr uct a small shed measuring 7’ X 4’ on the Municipal Board land at Dhakuakhana Ro ad in Ward No. 7 of North Lakhimpur Town in the year 1992-1993. She constructed the shed (Gumti) in that year itself and commenced her trade after obtaining an nual trade licence. In this way she has been running her shop for the last seve nteen years or so. However, the respondent No. 3 by the notice dated 18.11.1998 requiring her to vacate the aforesaid premises within fifteen days as the plot in question was required for construction of a public toilet claiming that she h as no alternative site to shift her shop, she approached the respondent No. 3 on 22.11.2010 for allotment of an alternative plot of land, but no action has be en taken to that effect till now. This is how this writ petition has been filed by her. From the admitted facts on record itself, it is clear that the petitione r has no right at all to continue to occupy the plot in question as she was neve r given any allotment of ownership thereon. There is also no dispute, nor can t here be any, that the plot in question is being utilized by the respondent No. 3 for construction of a public toilet, which is certainly infurtherence of public interest. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has miserabl y failed to make out any case for the interference of this Court. The writ petit ion, which is devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is given three months time to look for an alternative plot to shift her business, d uring this period of three months. The respondent No. 3 is directed not to dist urb the occupation of the plot in question by the petitioner. If the petitioner cannot make an alternative arrangement within the next three months, she will b e liable to be evicted by the respondent No. 3 without further reference from th is court. Needless to say, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the r espondent No. 2 for allotment of an alternative plot. The respondent No. 2 will also consider the representation dated 22.11.2010 in accordance with law and di spose of the same within the next three months. Writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.