The Court held that the respondents -- VMC, the municipal commissioner, deputy municipal commissioner, police commissioner, assistant commissioner of police and ward officer -- were technically not guilty of contempt of court, though their actions were reprehensible.

It also accepted the apology tendered by the municipal commissioner and deputy municipal commissioner.

In a petition filed by Sevakram Prabhudas and other cabin-holders in Padmavati Chaugan, opposite Nyaya Mandir, Vadodara, the additional advocate general had urged the Court on August 20, 1997, not to take up the matter as negotiations were going on between the VMC and the cabin-holders to reach a compromise.

The matter was to be heard the next day -- August 21, 1997 -- and the additional advocate general had assured the Court that no demolitions would take place for one day. But demolitions were carried out by the VMC that night. All the cabins were removed and roads were paved.

Appearing for municipal commissioner Vilasini Ramchandran and deputy municipal commissioner H S Patel, senior advocate Krishnakant G Vakharia submitted in the court that a mistake was committed by the VMC and the two officials apologised for it.

He said the Supreme Court had framed a scheme in 1989 for non-hawking zones. The apex court had also said the scheme should be implemented as soon as possible, he said.

Accordingly, the VMC officials undertook the demolition work as it was a public street in a non-hawking zone. Thus, their action was a result of the 1989 Supreme Court guidelines, he reasoned.

Senior advocate S B Vakil appeared for Sevakram Prabhudas.

ENS adds from Vadodara: Mayor Umakant Joshi described the High Court order as ``the right decision at the right time''. Welcoming the decision, Vadodara's first citizen said that now those occupying the space in Lehripura should be removed at the earliest.

Joshi said that he would soon hold talks with the officers concerned of the VMC to clear the road for the flow of traffic.

Deputy Municipal Commissioner (General) I B Peerzada said that the civic officers had acted in the interest of the Corporation. He stated that the decision would help the officers further to work wholeheartedly to demarcate the hawking zone and non-hawking zones in the city.