3-', IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. 2'&es / 2001 PBTITIGNER .^ ^.<$? ..^^., T.S.Singh Deo son of late Shri y.S.Singh Deo, sged about 52 years, Occupat.i.on - Agri- culture, Resident of Kothi Ghar Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja. ^•\-^ ^ ••••••" **'•'' Versus R ESPQ.NDENTS •l^,y<'" State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of urban Administration and Development Mantralaya, Raipur, C'Garh. 2. Deputy Director^ Nagar Tetha Gram Nivesb, District Office, Korba, ehhattisgarh. 3. Municipal Council, Ambikapur, throygb its Chief Municj.pal Offl.cer. Ambikapur, Distt. Sargujs, Chhattisgarh, -/^" PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION •OF INDIA FOR ISSTTANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI,_MANDAI>iUS, PR&HIBITION_AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS_OR_DIR TION/ ' mRECTIONS. ^lSIE^..., "?% '.°^} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 2668 of2001 T.S.SinghDeo. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Ofhers. r' PETmON.UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUnON OF DSTDIA oram : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govenuneat Advocate forthe State/respondent No. 1 and 2. Smt. Hamida Siddique, Advocate tbr the respondent No. 3/Municipal 'ounciL Ambikapur. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the notice dated 04.12.2001 (Annexure P/l) whereby flie petitioner was caiied upon to explain asto why action may not be taken against him under the provisions of section 37(6)(a) of Chhattisgarh Nagar Tafha Gram Nivesh Adliiniyam, 1973, on the allegation that the petitioner was raising structure unauthorisedly, not in accord&^sc wifhfhe plan sanctioned by fhe department. 2. Admittedly- the petitioner has not responded to ftie aforestated notice, whereupon the respondent authorities could have an opportunity to take any decision after consideriiig fhe reply of the petitioner. Thereafter only, the petitioner could have approached this Court, if grievance remaiiis. The petition is premature as no eause ofaction has arisen at this stage. 3. Vvifhout goine into fhe merits ofthe case. as no cause ofaction has arisen against the show cause notice, this petition is dismissed beine premature. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file response to the aforestated notice and fhereafter, the respondent aufhorities may take decision on its own merits and perspective and in accordance wifh law. 4. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- Satish K.AgnJhotri, Judge Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge