-:- 1 -:- Writ Appeal No.369 of 2010 26.09.2011 :- Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S.Ujjaniya, learned Panel Lawyer for the Respondents No.1 and 4/State. Shri C.L.Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3. Heard. O R D E R THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Writ Appeal No.370 of 2010 [Anwar s/o Ramu v/s State of M.P. and others], Writ Appeal No.371 of 2010 [Yakub s/o Bhiku v/s State of M.P. and others], Writ Appeal No.372 of 2010 [Afzal s/o Rafique v/s State of M.P. and others], Writ Appeal No.373 of 2010 [Vinay s/o Mahadev v/s State of M.P. and others], Writ Appeal No.374 of 2010 [Gulab w/o Haider Noor v/s State of M.P. and others], Writ Appeal No.375 of 2010 [Shakir s/o Habib v/s State of M.P. and -:- 2 -:- others] and Writ Appeal No.376 of 2010 [Late Munir Tuta through Hanif Rehman s/o Munir Tuta v/s State of M.P. and others]. [2] For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Appeal No.370 of 2010. [3] The appellant – writ petitioner was served with a notice dated 12.07.2010 issued by the Nagar Palika, Khargone whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the residential premises possessed by him. According to the appellant – writ petitioner a reply to the said notice was given to the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khargone but instead of deciding the objections raised in the said reply, the Nagar Palika Parishad proceeded to take possession from the petitioner. In the circumstances the petitioner had to approach this Court in Writ Petition No.9219 of 2010 (S). According to the appellant – writ petitioner the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.07.2010 without notice to the Nagar Palika Parishad and the Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khargone by observing thus :- “07. However, as only 15 days time has been -:- 3 -:- granted to the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in the accommodation in question for a period of two months enabling the petitioner to find out any other alternative accommodation and after expiry of two months period from today, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate action against the petitioner. 08. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue in the accommodate in question in case he files an undertaking within a period of one week from today, clearly stating therein he shall vacate the premises in question after expiry of two months.” [4] According to the appellant – writ petitioner the grievance raised by the petitioner in reply to the notice issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad and the grounds raised in the writ petition remained undecided and the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises. [5] Shri C.L.Yadav, learned Senior Counsel very fairly stated that the Respondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the petitioner's reply to the said notice and shall pass a reasoned order on it and then shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. -:- 4 -:- [6] Having regard to the aforesaid, we are inclined to dispose of this writ appeal by setting-aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and by directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 Nagar Palika Parishad to consider the petitioner's reply to the notice send by him and shall take appropriate decision on it in accordance with law and to proceed in the matter as may be permissible to them. It is further observed that till appropriate decision, as aforesaid, is not taken, the Respondents shall not evict the petitioner from the premises in question without taking action in conformity with law. [7] With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ appeals stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed in the files of connected writ appeals, as particularized above. [ Shantanu Kemkar ] [ Prakash Shrivastava ] JUDGE JUDGE (AKS)