IN THE HON‘BLE IHGH COURT ()1" CHHATTISGARH AT BIL/\SPUR (C.G_.l WRIT PETITIONIQ) NO. gggg‘ ()F 2010 (8.8.) PE’l‘l'I‘IONERS : 1. VERSUS f’ l. Sml. Luxmi 13m Soni Widow of Late Govind 11:11 Soni, aged about 75 years. Suresh K Limar Soni S/o Late Govind La} Soni, aged about 54 years. Ramcsh Kumar Soni S/o Late Govind llzll Soni, aged about 45 yCal"S. Mahosh Kumar Soni S/o Laie Govind" Lal Soni, aged about 42 years. Dinesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Govind Lal Soni, aged about 4O years. Ashok Kumar Soni S/o Late Goyind Lal Soni, aged about 38 years. ‘ All are R/u In front of Gurudwa‘ra, Neelkama! Bakery, Neelkamal Pan Palace, Stution’ Road, Raipur (C.G.). - The Stat e of Chhattisgarh) through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development: and Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Municipal Corporation, Raipur r" ' ' , (C.Gt), through: its Cmn'inissioner, ' Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.). w jW‘ (w) 3. > r‘[he Lone r Comrmsstoner, y ‘ ‘ Zone No.22, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C‘G.). 4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER /\R’I‘!_CLE 22g OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 1C 1 N0. 5364 0f2010 PETITIONERS z Smt. LaxmiBai Soni & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State 0f Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri M.K.Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 & 4. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and 3. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 22" day of September, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3- Corporation submits that no cause of action has arisen in the instant petition as no notice has been issued by the Corporation to the petitioners. The petition has been filed on the basis of mere apprehension that their property may be demolished. He further submits that if any action is proposed to be taken against the petitioners, the same shall be done in accordance with law. In viewof foregoing, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. \ \ \ . Amit i