IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 445 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 445 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 445 OF 2006 Khan Najma Habibur Rehman. ] ..Petitioner V/s. 1. The Stock Exchange, Mumbai & 4 ors. ] ..Respondents Mr. Anand Grover, senior counsel with Mr. Sayed A. Ali for the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Divekar i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the respondent No.1. Ms. Trupti H. Puranik for respondent No.2. Ms. Soumya Srikrishna i/b Crawford Bayley & Co. for respondent No.4. Ms. I. Calcuttawala, AGP, for respondent No.5. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 12TH APRIL, 2006 P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court and sought two reliefs. It is firstly contended that in the order dated 24th January, 2001, which has granted temporary permission to reinstall the Mafco Stall, the expression "temporary permission" should not be included and secondly, it is pointed out that in the Plan filed : 2 : before the Apex Court, the area where the Stall was to be erected, showed a No Parking Zone. 3. Footpaths are public places. In terms of the law declared by the Apex Court, hawking is permitted, but no person has a right to squat in a particular place. No person also has a right to put up a permanent structure nor can any person claim entitlement for permanent allocation. Continuance of the structure will depend as to whether on the particular street, hawking can be permitted and the need of the pedestrians. We, therefore, do not find that the order of allotment suffers from any infirmity. Once the respondents and the petitioner agreed before the Apex Court and based upon that the petitioner was given alternative place to carry on the business, the petitioner would be allowed to carry on her business subject to renewal of the licence in terms of the law in force. No person can claim a right to a permanent site on a public footpath. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 4. Insofar as parking near the place where the petitioner is carrying on her business, no such relief : 3 : can be granted. The issue as to whether a parking is to be allowed in a particular place will depend on the nature of the traffic and the decision of the Municipal Authorities and Traffic Police. This Court cannot sit in judgment on such matters. That grievance also, in our opinion, does not have any merit. 5. With the above observations, Petition disposed of. Sd/- [F.I. [F.I. [F.I. REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] Sd/- [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]