The right to livelihood does not entitle occupants to conduct business on public roads.

The petitioners challenged a show-cause notice and a notice dated 29 August 2026 directing them to vacate and demolish shop rooms situated on a lowland beside 24B, Bagmari Road.

They claimed to have built the shops in 1985 and said they did not obstruct the public thoroughfare or access to the adjoining property.

The dispute arose against the background of earlier proceedings brought by co-owners of 24B, Bagmari Road, concerning structures and encroachments on the footpath.

A joint inspection in May 2024 recorded permanent structures occupying part of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s (KMC) recorded road width.

The Court also noted that the petitioners’ writ petition did not disclose the earlier proceedings and that an undated letter received by the KMC on 6 October 2026 sought postponement of demolition and undertook to vacate by 14 November 2026.

1. Whether the petitioners could resist removal of the shop rooms by relying on their livelihood and the constitutional protections in Articles 21 and 19(1)(g).

2. Whether the Court should entertain the writ petition challenging the removal notices, given the recorded encroachment and the petitioners’ non-disclosure of material proceedings.

The Court considered Sections 371 and 516 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, under which the impugned notices were issued.

It also considered the petitioners’ reliance on Articles 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 545, concerning the rights of pavement and slum dwellers.

The Court held that the right to life does not include a right to interfere with public convenience, and that a person has no right to carry on business on a public road.

The Court found that the KMC inspection recorded permanent structures occupying part of its road width, and that earlier proceedings had sought to have the public road cleared of encroachments.

It distinguished Olga Tellis because the case concerned pavement and slum dwellers, whereas the petitioners’ structures were shops on a public road; the Court therefore rejected the argument that the cited constitutional protections justified their continued occupation.

The Court further relied on the petitioners’ failure to disclose the earlier proceedings and their own undertaking to vacate to conclude that the case did not warrant exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

It directed that all parties could act on the basis of a downloaded server copy of the order.