/ La) C m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) M76? / of 2007 PETITIONERS : /' 1./ Bhajan Das Godwani Son of Late Siroomal Godwani aged about 60 years ReSIdent q/Near Bus Stand Gunderdehi TahsuLDurg District Durg (Chhattisgarh). Satyawan Godwani, Son of Late Siroomal Godwani aged about 46 years ReSidentof NearB s Stand L Gumlede L Gunderdehi, TahSIIDHfg District Durg (Chhattisgarh). Gundtf {bl V Versus RESPONDENTS 1. “State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Deveiopment, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Nagar Panchaya, Gunderdehi, through its Chief Municipai Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROAPRIATE WRITIWRITS, DIRECTIONS ET.C. The Petitioner, above named, most respectfully begs to submit as under; — 1. Particulars of the Petitioner. \ \ As mentioned in the cause titie. \\N \(\\)\ D W‘ 1‘ t l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRH’ PETTI‘ION (C) N0. 7691 of2007 PETITEONERS : Bhaj an Das Godwani & another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Stats of Chimttisgarh & Another. WRI’f PE’HTEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH]; CONS'I‘I’I'U’I‘ION OF I INDIA SB: Han’hle Sim Satish K: Agnimm: J. Prasent: Shri San-My K. Agrawai with Shri Sudeep AgrawaL Advocates for the §etiii0n6rs. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. GA for the State/respondent N0. 1. x Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate for the rgspondcnt No‘ 2. URBEh @RA' (PaSS$d 0n 29 deg of Ocmbsr, 2010) 1. The petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respoxidezlt N0. 2 from evicting the petitioners and demolishing their shop and residentiai buiiding, situated Within the limits of Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the respendent No. 2Nagar Panchayat, Gundertiehi, submits that no cause of action has arisen in the instant petition as there is no move on the part of the ‘97 responcient-Nagar Panchayat, to demolish the property in dispute. The petition has been filed on the basis of mere apprehension that his property may be deinoiisheti. He further submits that if any action is proposed to he taken against the petitioner in tilture, the same shall be done in accordance with law. 3. In View of ibregoing, according to ieanieé counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for acijudication. 4. Accordingiy, the writ hetition is ciisrmSSBd Sd" ““‘ohY‘ Sat'lsh Ame Jnd‘ée L) ‘ r / \