' 2‘' 1 SHANTIDEVI AGRAWAL Wife of Shri a1, aged about ‘46 years, esident of ar Ra SMT. Omprakash Agraw Ramsiag Para, ipur PETITIONER ’4’— STATE OF CHI-IATTISGARH hrough the Clector, . t ol 2. RAIUR MUNICIPAL ed under CORPORATION he relevant Provisions A Body o M.P. at Malviya Municipal Road, Corporati Raipur through the Commissioner of ipalQg" §\ w” ’ if ' 'V ip Raur P t f Corporate Cstitut on Act, 956'ving its Office Q Munice 1 . m ’ \ COMISNER, Raipur MSIO Q l “ m { . ration, alya Road,Raipur. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HmICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. No.17gof 200 R VERSUS on 1ha %§€\ 1p 3 %7 wm‘Co o MVi RESPONDENTS ? 5p/ 33 «sw PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ‘I IA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF PROHIBITION AMUS ETC AND/OR FOR ORDER S AND/OR FOR THE DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF THE WRITs \ responden‘r No.1 / Sfa‘l‘e. Shri Monindm Shrivos’rovo, Ie Heard finolly of mofion wi'fh c ner' submifs Tha‘r on The ground of 2) Counsel for The pe‘l’i‘ric oHeged illegol cons'rrucfion of buik being apprehended and directed. cases offences have been compou ed and in some cases applicaTions for compounding have been made Counsel for The STaTe and The respondenfs oppose The pe'fifion No.2 and 3. onsenf. d have filed The reTurn and in The cases where reTurns are noT filed, equesT has been made for adopTing The reTurn already filed. IT is poi Ted ouT ThaT This CourT has passed deTailed order in WriT PeTiTion N 716/2001, which is regisTered as iTizen of Bilas ur v; Munici al Co oraTion Bilas ur. A copy ofThe said order has been'ploced on reco . 3) Counsel for The C rporaTion ,/ STaTe and oTher auThyoriTies / respondenfs pointed ouT ThaT because of illegal consTrucTion / encroachmen'r in viglaTion of building laws difficulTies and problems have arisen such as polluTion of air and waTer, obsfruc‘rion in cleaning of dmins,i3ppuge of How of woTer', deniol of Wow '.sh of :orned counsel for‘ihe responden’rs ling and o‘rher Things demoliTion is T is also conTended ThaT in cerTain r C 200i ma / 311%31 Em m W m Hfé'a 35WW ‘EW “(W mam man Hm %‘ aim 31W 07. 12.2001 Shri B.P.$horma, learned counsel for ‘rhe peTifioner. Shri Gau‘l'om Bhoduri, learned Govt Advoco‘l'e for 1'he civic ameni‘ries and damage of roads. I‘r also causes frqffic obs‘rrucfion and hindrance in smoofh fra‘Ffic. This Cour‘r hgd passed orders from Time f0 Time on 17.08.2p01 and on 28.09.2001. 4) The Apex Cour? in Ahimedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and ofher- (AIR 1997 5C *52) has deal'r wi‘rh 1he mafrer' In grea'i' de‘l'ail The Jud emenf has been read In exfenso 5) Counsel for fhe respo em‘s pom'red ou’r 'rhaf some of $he pe‘rifions have been filed by 'l’he 'Tiiioners merely on apprehension. The respondenfs / Corpora'rion a aufhorifies have inspecfed spof and also made enquiries regarding 1‘ e consfrucfion. 6) Counsel for 1'he re ponden‘l's / Corpora‘hon fur‘rher submrrred Tha‘r The pe‘h‘honers hav rushed 1'0 'rhe High Courf 'l'houglP dispufed quesfions of fads are involved and each case rests on de'l'ermination of +hose fac‘rs. In rfain cases where nofices are noT served 1hey are prema'rure as well as in ofher cases ‘rhe Corpora'rion and fhe au'rhori‘ries requiring de oli‘l'ion will serve ndfice 1'0 The pefi‘rioners and in, Those cases here notices have already been served. The pe-‘ri'l'ioners may now file reply suppor'l'ed- by'affidavi‘l‘s and documen‘l's e1'c., which will be onsidered and decided ’on ifs own meri'l' in accordance wi'l'h law. If e pefi‘l'ioners give in wri'l'ing wii'h affidavif on points specified ‘rhaf lihey are desirous of being heard, ‘l'hey shall also be heard by Thel Corporafion or by 'l'he aufhori‘ry —’"" concerned as f’ ar a‘s'po‘ssi‘blei“, \ \\ \ '.sh of XI—HC-22 WW 2%13 20m, r‘kw record. In our opinion quesTions s oughT To be raised in The peTiTions are dispuTed quesTions of facT, which cannoT be gone inTo by This Cour'i' in wriT jurisdicTion. 8) Having Thus considerei we direcT as under: Wherever The . has noT been i x a) s1 is, apprehension and noTice ed by The CorporaTion or The concerned auThOiriTy noTice shall be issued and opporTuniTy sha afTer reply is considered and accordance wiTh ilaw. filed on or before 31“ 1 re served and reply, if any, is filed and decide b) i The ToTaliTyrof The circumsTances i be given To file reply and filed The maTTer shall be decided on iTs own meriTs in LeT reply be December, 200 Till The noTices sTaTus quo as on Today i.e. 07.12.2001 shall xbe mainTained by The parTies. mew __._l i r Ish of m mm WW mm mmmm ‘ ‘3A wwwuiwm égwi‘’rvmaném ‘ 7) We have considered 1'he submissions made by rivai par-Ties gone Through fhe record and The order shee‘is have been recorded in The similar cases frcm Time To Time so as To provide opporTuniTy To a” parTies To place Their respecTive viewpoint IT is noT necessary To reiTeraTe Them here once again as “They form parT of Wm ~ ....L..:. §.:.(..D. .Z....:..‘#. mmmw ~4~ Wmi§wm éEa-TWW 9) Wi‘l'h ‘fhese observafi disposed of. Original documen‘rs f affer fhe phofocopies are filed on be refunded ‘ro 'rhe pe‘ri‘rioner as pe Certified photocopy as per rL ""\, Sd/—l R €hief Justiee \‘x \ ons and directions 'rhis pefi‘rion is led by The par‘ries may be refurbned record. The security, if deposited, n rules. Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge