^^'£>c} V6^' HIGH COURT OFGHHATnSGARH : mLASPUR Petitioncr Respondeats Writ Ftetition fG) No. 2936 of20Q© Narayan Pr^iad Verma, S/o Late Dukhuram Verma, s^ed 58 years, resident of Raipur (Dangaiiya Near Aslnrvad Hospital) Pd. Dindayal Upadhyay Ward, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Versus 1. TUe State of CUhattisgaxIi, throi^h tfae Secfetaxy, Department of Urban A<iministratk>n. and Local Sclf D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Muaieipal Cca-poBatmin Raipur, tluoiigh its Comxnissioner, Muiucipal Corpwcatioii, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Thc Upayukt, Muaicipal Corporafioa, Raipur, Dtett. Raipur:(Chhattisgart^ 4. The Revenue Aufhoiity, M'uiBicipal CoipQratjoa; Raipur, ©istt.RaipUF{C,G.} 5. The Aytlioiity Zone KaryalayaZone 5 (five) Munleipal Corporatioa, Rai^u, Distt. Raipttr(ChhattisgarI^ 6. TheQdiector, Raipur,Distt. Raipm-(e.O.) 7. Mukesh Sharma, S/oShri Salyaaarayan Slianna, aged 43 years, aesidieat of Brahmaapara ia fiont of buildicjg Dr. BhagwaatatRatpur,IMstt. Raipur (C.jG,} 8. Dr.Nalini Madliaiiya,^cd about 48|yeaTS, Director of Ashirvad Hospital at Raqiur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 9. Dn S. N. Madl),tog^|flgedatout5t]yca^ Ashirvad Hospital, Raipia-, Distt. REdpiir (Chhattisgath) I 10. Tbe F'residcnt, Municipal Cca-poiatioii, Ratpur,^Distt. RaipurjChJhattisgarhji WRFT PETTTON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE GOI^ITTUTtONOE-JiNEaA (SB: HoiiMe Shri Satish K. Agnihcrtri J.) ; Shri S. K. Dadscha, Advocate fia'thjepetitfanner. I •i • ShraArunSao,GovtAlv0cateatetlietesp(mdeiitsNo.laad6.^ Shn H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Meeia Jsuswal, Advocate forfherespondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5and 10. ] ShriM. K. Bhaduri.Adwocate for thje icspoadeatNb. 7. Shri R, K. Keslierwam, Advocate ^ithe i'es^»»dentsN<^ S^^^fa^ ~a Thakur OR.DBRtoran (Passed on this 9th day ofJuly, 2009) Heard. By this petition, the pctitioiier claims a relief fhat tUe respondents/authorities aiay be directed not to demolfah the residential house of ttie petitioner, without foUowing fhe provisionsoflaw and principles ofnaturaljustice. Shri H. B. Agarwal, leamed Senior coimsel with Ms Meera Jaiswal, leamcd counscl appearing for the respoiidents/Corporationsubxiuts tbat at prescnt, theie is no prpposal to demolish tlie house of, fhe petltioiaer. The representation iiiade 'by the petitioner alpxig witli bther persons is peiidir^ consideratton and no steps woiild bc tdffin before decision on fhc saidrepresentation. Decisioii, jfany.wiB be taken on fhe reprcsentation after aEFording proper opportumty ofhcaruig. In view of the ctear and categorical stateinent inade by leamed counsel for the respondents/ Corporation, relyin®on the retuni dated 8.7.2009, fited on tiheir behalf, the petition has no merit, as fhe petitioner lias pleaded fhe facts which are not ia cxistenceat sSL In view of fhe foregou^;, fhe petition te dismissed. Interun order dated 24.6.2009 is vacated. No oider asto costs. ] Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge