IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) N0. o!yk\0\ OF 2010 (S.B.) f%?^."^S s-- ^..^•:~y-^,- ^^,^^'^ u^^s-^ '^ QG^^."^. PETITIONERS ..^ /•L ^ "w/ -'•f;/^ >^^y ^w ' / A'V /-; ^' "^ RESPONDENTS : ^•'^SfW'V ^..... 1. Devendra Kumar Taank S/o Late Lalji Bhai Taank, aged about 49 years, R/o at present Hotel Ajanta Fafadiy Chowk, Raipur (C.G.j. 2. Kamlesh Kumar Taank S/oLate Lalji Bhai Taank, aged about 45 years. 3. Gautam Kumar Taank S/o Lalji Bhai Taank, aged about 39 years, both R/o Hotel Ajanta Building, Fafadeeh Chowk, Raipur for himself and on behalf of petitioner No.l as Power ofAttorney Holder. VERSUS 1. • The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.), through: its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Zone Commissioner, Zone No.2, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA -—<3^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2419 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Devendra Kumar Taank & Others RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Gowri (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pragya Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 10th day of December, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the subject.matter is identical to that of W.P. (C) No.1945 of 2010 (Devendra Kumar Taank & Others v. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur & Another), this matter may be taken separately, as the petitioners are cha!ienging the contents of the notice dated 3-5-2010. 3. Be that as it may, in the other writ petition being W.P. (C) No.1945 of 2010, listed together, on submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation one more opportunity of hearing was directed to be afforded to the petitioners in this case. If the petitioners even challenging the legality and validity of the notice dated 3-5-2010, the petitioners may raise the issue before the authority, as the petitionerswould be entitled to one more notie& in this matter. Therefore, at this stage, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the dispute. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise the question about the legality and validity, if so advised, before the respondent Corporation. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge