HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR w Writ Patition (C) No. 3563 0f 2009 Pétitioner Boby Balkumari Devi, Wio Late Narendra Pratap Singh, aged. about 7’2 yaars, R/o Pandariya Bal1glow, Nsar High Court, Bilaspur, C.G. Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Urbam Administration Department, DKS Bhawam, Raipur, CG. The Municipa1 Corporation Bi1aepur, through the Commissioner, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The Building Officer, Municipal Comoration Bilaspur, DiStIiot Bilaspur C. G. WRET PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the i‘eepondent No. 1. Ms Hamida Siddque, Advocate for the reepondents No. 2 85 3‘ 2. D R D E R (Passed on this 1“ clay of September, 2009) Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P/6), passed by the respondent No.2 for registration of F.I.R. against the petitioner in police and the notice issued for taking over control of plots sold by the petitioner under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Registration of Coloniser, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 (foé short ‘rhe Rules, 1998’). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 would submit that no hiial order has been passed pursuant to the notice dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P/5). Since the reply has already been filed by the petitioner to the said notice, the same shall be considered and the orders shall he passed in accordance with law. on its own merits, pursuant to the notice dated 6.7.2009. x W 7/ A? 111 r€§p€ct of the order dated 8. 10.2008 (A11nexur6 P/ 6}, which is aiso scught to be impugned in this pctitio11, 16am€d comlsd for the mspondentss No. 2 €35 3 would submit that on perusal of the proceedings, dated 3.8.2008 and 8.8.2008, it appears that a decision was tak€n to issue a Show cause notice to tha petitionsr for having violatéd the. provisions of Seci‘ion 292 of the Madhya Pradosh/ Chhat’tisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 read With Rule l5~C but the notice could not be issued. However, the petitioner had participated iii the proceedings. Be that as it may, it is gin-admitted case that no proposed notice was ever issued to me peiitioner before the mpugned onier dated 8.10.2008 {Aimexure Pfé} was passed. Learned counsel further submits that appropiiate notice shall be issued as contemplated in the proceedings dated 3.8.2008 ami 8.8.2008 to the petitioner. The petitioner may file her response and thereafter the order date<i 8. 10.2008 shall be reconsidered and appropxiate order shall be passed in accordance with law. In View of the foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts situation of the case, the impugned order dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure 'P/6) is set aside. The respondents N0. 2 and 3 are at liberty to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, d so advised. No order asto costs. go w. I l Sdl- Satish K. Agnih9‘rii Judge ‘ Thakur