HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETIT10NER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 5664 OF 2008 Sujit Thakur, aged 39 years, S/o Late Shri Chandrahas Thakur, R/b Baldeobag, Ward No.14, Tahsii & Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus 1. State ^ pf Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, •'Department of Urban Development (Nagriya Nitay Avam Sthaniya Shasan), DKS Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 3. The Commissioner, Municipat Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present:- Shri J .N. Nande, coynsef for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 27th day of July, 2009} 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw this petition wtth liberty to take recourse to competent jurisdicfionat civtt Court for appropriate relief. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner may take some time to obtain order from the civil Court and, as such, interim retief granted by this Court on 1-10-2008 may be continued for a further Deriod ofthree weeks. 3. Per contra, learned eounsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner has made a construction on a public nala/publlc road and is creating obstruction. fl 6. Gowri •T^— Be that as it may, since the petitioner h^ been aranted interim reHef on 1-10-2008, in exercise of equity jurisdiction of thfs Court,l direct that interim order dated 1-10-2008 shall be maintained for a further period of three weeks from the date of this order. in view of foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with ths aforesaid liberty and direction. It is made clear that the grant of interim reiief in favour of the petitioner may not be taken as an opinion of this Court. If the application is moved by the petitioner, the Court beiow may consider and decide the same on ife own merits and in accordancs with law. j Sd/- Satish K. Aghihotri Judge ...j;.;...^.;;.:.:'i'f: