^^.•S^E,-^ ./' .^i'^:'\ ^ E '*S '"' fi!ak I ' '";iiff'^.. !•• 'y* r Jff A ,K <\v •I' w ^ ^ Pstitioner HiGH COURT OF CKHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Pstition (Art.227) ?iio.8797 of2S11 R.PJaiswai, s/o Tukru Prasad Jaiswai, aged about 67 yesrs, r/o B- 2 Rajaswa Coiony, Chantidih, Bilaspur, Tahsi! and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Nagar Palik Nigam Biiaspur, ihrough Commissloner, Nsgar PaliK Nigam Bilaspur (C.G.) (Wrii Petition under Articie 227 of ths Constlfution of indis) Mr-Aiok Bakshi, counsei for the petitioner. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.I ORDER (18-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioner has chalienged ihe iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the District Judge, Biiaspur, in M.C.A.No.43/10, affirming the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the 4th Civii Judge Ciass-1, Biiaspur, in Civil Suit No.7-A/09, whereby the appiication fited on behalf of the piaintiff/petitioner for temporary injunction has been dlsmissed. 2. I havs heard iearned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned and other documents fiied on bshaif ofthe petitioner. 3. As per the petitioner, he has appiied bsfore the respondent for grant of permission for construction of house on 31.10.2005, but he has not been inSimatsd reiating to grant or non-grant of permission for construction within 30 days from 31 .10.2005, therefore, he has constructed the house. 4. As per document of the petitioner Annexure P/10, permission for construction was not granted by the respondent vide order datsd 24.11.2005 and the same has been receiv'ed by the petitioner on 2.12.2005 i.e. within 9 days of such order and after one month of such appiicatlon, but the fact remain that it has bean communicated to the petitioner vvithin 9 days i.e. within expir/ period ofthree days, but Instead •^ r s^ »L ^ -^ of appi'ying/contesting his claim before ihe respondent he has consiructed the house. 5. Consideriiring the aforesaid fact and circumstances, both the Courts beiow 'nave refused to grant temporary injunction. Considering ihe conduct of the petltioner the Courts beiow have rlghtly refused to grant of discretbnary rslief. not fiifind any ground for interference in the order impugned. Consequentiy, the writ petition is iisbie to be dismissed and it is hereby dlsmissed. No order as te costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge