Order to shift workshop–Whether covered by term encroachment–Question of–From language of notices, it appears that applicant was directed to shift his workshop to some other place–Mere parking of vehicles in front of shop is not encroachment as road or street is partly used for transport parking–Held: Non-applicants were not empowered to force applicant to shift his workshop from his own premises. PLJ 1991 Cr.C (AJK)- 324

Public street–Encroachment of–Removal of encroachment–Notice of–Challenge to–Petitioner got a portion of leased property on rent but also encroached a portion of public street–Multan Cantonment Board by a general notice through press media called upon intruders and encroachers to quit–Contention that Board itself granted permission, and if petitioner was required to vacate, notice under Section 185(2) of Cantonment Board Act, was must–Whether petitioner is guilty of encroachment or not, is a question involving a factual inquiry–Held: Petitioner has allegedly been guilty of a patent encroachment and he cannot get benefit in aid of his mis-doing–Held further: Writ petition, on face of it, is misconceived–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1994 Note 41