HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W. P. (Cl No. 794/2010 PETITIONER Rajendra Reddy (Mistri), s/o Late Shri Munna Swami Reddy, aged about 75 years, R/o Near Jaisukh Mirani House, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G). RESPQNDENTS Vs. 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Collector, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgao (C.G). through District 2. Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Through its Commissioner, 0 Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G). 3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G). 4. Suyash Kumar Sakhla (Jain), s/o Shri Mangilal Sakhla (Jain), R/o R.K. Agency Gudakhu Line, near the house of Jai Sukh Mirani, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent no. 1 on advance copy. ORAL ORDBR (25.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard on admission. Petitioner Rajendra Reddy has filed this petition for the following relief(s) : (10. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT In view of the facts and grounds mentioned above the petitioner humbly and most respectfully prays the following reliefin the ends ofjustice :- ^ W. PfQ.NO. 794/2010 (i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to eall for the entire records relating to the present case. (ii) That the Hon"ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction/directions by directing the respondents 1, 2 & 3 not to demolish the premises of the petitioner and the notice dated 16.03.2009 be quashed. (iii) The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to permit the petitioner to reside and carry the business on the said premises and the respondents may kindly be directed that the petitioner should not be removed from the said premises. (iv) Any other relief, which may suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. (v) The cost of petitioner may also kindly be awarded in favour ofthe petitioner.3' toNNpl, —-""\ The petitioner thus in substance is praying for quashment of the notice dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon u/s 310 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956). The petitioner is the tenant in the premises for which the aforesaid notice has been issued by the Corporation, Mr. Kotecha submits that the grounds taken in the notice for demolition of the premises are not correct. It is not a case in which the premises of the petitioner is in dangerous state and demolition of the said premises would be required u/s 310 of the Act, 1956. He further submits that earlier, landlord ofthe petitioner had filed a suit for eviction but the said suit was dismissed on 10.09.2003 and now the notice has been issued by the Corporation at the instance of the present landlord namely Suyash Kumar s/o Mangilal Sakhla. Mr. Arun Sao, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State argues that the order passed by the Commissioner regarding satisfaction relating to the condition of the building as also the notice issued in consequence thereof are appealable u/s 403 of the Act, 1956 before the appeal Committee, therefore, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. He submits that the notice was issued on 16.03.2009 and the petitioner has approached this \ Court by filing this writ petition in Februaiy, 2010. ^\ W.PCO. N0.794/2010 i : On the above objection taken by learned State Counsel, Mr. Kotecha submits thaton 13.02.2010, the persons belonging to Corporation had visited the premises of the petitioner for its demolition, therefore, the petitioner had to file this writ petition though he has already submitted reply to the said notice much earlier before the Corporation. He submits that if the petitioner is sent for availing the alternative remedy then some protective order may be granted in favour of the petitioner, so that, in the meanwhile the premises of the petitioner is not demolished on the basis of the illegal action taken by the third parly. In view of all this and in view of the provisions of section 403 of the Act, 1956 he prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to file an appeal but with some order protecting the interest ofthe petitioner in the meanwhile. The prayer is allowed. The petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner that if so advised, he may file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 15 days from today and if such an appeal is filed, it shall be disposed of by the concerned authority in accordance with law without being inHuenced by the observrations made in this order. It is further directed that the status quo in relation to the accommodation of the petitioner as it obtains today shall be maintained for a period of 15 days from today. With the above observations/direction, this petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- C.c.today. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao