A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshwant Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain observed that the participation of stakeholders, particularly the lawyers' body, would be necessary to arrive at a workable solution to the issue.

"The petition raises concerns pertaining to traffic woes on account of the various activities connected with the functioning of the court, especially the handcarts catering to the stakeholders in the court establishment. The party in person, who is himself a practising advocate in the District Court of Jabalpur, seeks permission to move an application so as to bring on record other stakeholders, whose participation would be essential to bring about workable solution to the issue raised."

The Court accordingly permitted the petitioner to move an application for bringing the other stakeholders on record and directed that the matter be listed after two weeks.

The petition concerns alleged encroachment by street vendors, including handcarts, in front of Gates 3 and 4 of the new District Court premises, which was completed in 2018. According to the petitioner, customers visiting these shops park their vehicles in front of them, resulting in obstruction of traffic on the road leading to the court premises.

During the hearing, the Bench noted that the vendors also cater to the requirements of people visiting the court and observed:

"You know the charges in the canteen and charges outside. The general public would tend to go there. It is catering to their requirement also. So if it is a traffic hazard, then of course, some steps will have to be taken to streamline it. Use theek krne ke lie, unhe hata dena is not the solution (to correct the situation, removing them is not the solution)"

The advocate appearing in the matter submitted that the primary grievance was not that the vendors were selling food and other articles to the public, but that the manner in which the stalls operated was clogging the road leading to the District Court.

The Bench observed that there was a need for a proper plan to deal with the situation, which could be worked out by the traffic police or the court establishment. However, it said that such a plan could not be unilateral and that other stakeholders, particularly lawyers, would also have to participate.

"There is, of course, a requirement of having a proper plan for dealing with such situations, which either the traffic police or the court establishment should work on it. But it cannot be a unilateral plan by the administration and therefore the participation of the other stakeholders, mainly the lawyers, is also expected."

When the advocate submitted that the lawyers' body was also attempting to remove the stalls, the Bench observed:

"Bar Association should also be party to this litigation if we are looking for a 360-degree solution."

The Bench further clarified that it was "not treating this litigation as adversarial", indicating that the stakeholders should work towards resolving the issue collectively.

The petitioner has claimed that around 10,000 people, including lawyers and litigants, visit the District Court premises every day. It was also alleged that persons with criminal antecedents frequent the shops and intimidate witnesses visiting the court premises.

The petitioner had earlier submitted representations to several authorities, including the Chief Justice of the High Court, the District and Sessions Judge, the Collector, the Superintendent of Police and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation.

The petition states that the Municipal Corporation had issued a public notice to encroachers occupying portions of the main road, but they allegedly failed to remove the establishments. The petitioner thereafter sent a reminder to the authorities, alleging that no action was taken.