HI6H COURT OF CHHATriS6ARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition (c) No.1444 of 2008 (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indio) P6TITIONERS Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Nagenctra Nath Panigrahi, S/o Late Duryodhan Panigrahi, aged 66 years, Oceupation- Agricuiturist, ^ram-Post Aasna (Donga &hat), District Jagdalpur (C.hhattisgarh) 2. S.R. Mandan, S/o Late K.D. Mandan, aged 66 yeors, Occupation- Agriculturist, ^ram-Post Aasna (Donga &hat), bistrict Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) 3. B.N. Panigrahi, S/o Late 5C Panigrahi, aged 66 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, &ram"Post Aasno (Donga 6hat), District Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- the Secretary, Urban Administration cmd tSevelopment &epartment, Mantralay, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Coiiector, uistrict Jagdaipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Municipal Corporation, Jagdatpur Through its commtssioner, Aftunicipal ^OrpOruTjOn/ Juyuaspur ^nnuiTiyyyrn/ pr^sejit.' Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. Dalpati, Advoccrt-e fbr the ^etitioners. ^r. Alok Bakshi, &ovt..Advocate for respondent No.l <& 2. ^Ar. Vinay HQrit, Sr. Advocate with AAr. S.K. AAishra, Advocote for rcspondent No.3 GRAl GR&ER (Passedon 05.11.2009) Per Dhiremdrfl Mishrfl. J-\ 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard for disposal. 2. The petitioners, residents of Dongaghat, an area of Groam Panchayat/Villaae Aasna, have fited the instant petition ancl proyed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorcsri for quashina and settina aside the impugned notificort-ion dated 03.09.2002 (Annexure P-10) whereby ^3 Dongaghat area of 6rram Panchayat Aasna has been included into the municipal Itmits ofthen Municipal Council, Jagdalpur. 3. &rievance of the Detitioner is that the same has been mcluded without takina into consideration the obiection made QQainst anv oroDosal of inclusion of the said area into the limits of municipal area in violation of Section 5-A of the AAunicipalities Act, 1961 (for short lAct, 1961'). The impugned notification has been issued without eonsideration of the objectjons/representations submitted by the petitioners to the authorities. The notification also does not mention that the objections w/ere considered before issuance of the impugned notification. Dong09hat area is separated from the municJpality area by river Indravati flowin9 between the two areas. Inclusion of the said area tnto municipatity would completely destroy the aaricultural activities. Deeision has been taken s^ithout considerina the obiections submitted bv the &ram PanchavQt. It has been further averred that uoon issuance of notlficotion, representations were.madeto the State authorities under thc leadership of the local Member of LeaislQtive Assembly, whereupon assuronces were held out thot as soon as ban is lifted by Delimitation Commission, area shatl be excluded from the lirpits and because of the assurances there is a deioy in flting this petition. 4. Respondents in their return have averred that the p^itioners have no locus standi to file the instant petition and challenge the notification of Annexure P-10. The petitioners have challenged the vatidity of the notification dated 03.09.2002 (Annexure P-10) after almost more than five years and the explanation offeredl by them for delay is absoiutely unconvincino, therefore, the Detition is also tiable for dismissal on the around of delav and loches. It has been further averred that m the meanwhile, Municipal Council, Jagdalpur has been up9raded into a MunicipalCorporation vide notification dated 30.10.2002 (Annexyre P- 12) and the petitioners have not chaltenged the subsequent notjfication of Annexure P-12 which supercedes the notification of Annexure P-10, Subseauent to the notjfication due etections have been held and elected Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur has been constituted and notified and the present area is Ward No-3 of the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur. 5. Replying to the allegations in the petition, it has been ayerred that the objections were called from the villagers likely to be effected by the notification. Notification inviting objections was widely published in the local newspapers of Jagdalpur ond also in wideiy circulated newspaper Dainik Nay Bharat and DainiK Bhaskar published from Raipur. Writ^en objection sianed by 231 villaaers was received by the authorities and these ob iectors were afforded oDDortunity of oersonal hearina and In the Dersonal hearina 55 obiectors oresented themselves. Their obiections were taken on record. the same were considered bv the Collector and after due consideration, the Collector sent his comments to the Secretarv, ©overnment of Chhaftisaarh and after considerinq the objections, the impugned notification was issued m the laraer public interest by the ^overnment. No assurances were held to the villQoers or local M.LA. that their objections aciainst notifjcation shall be considered after delimitation is over, as alleaed in the petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I hoiye perused the pleadings in the writ petition and return filed by the respondents as also docurpents annexed therewith. 7. Notificotion issued on 03.09.2002 hotS been questioned by woy of this writ Detjtjon jn the yegr 2008 j.e, GJrftost after Si- years, and thjs Coyrt J5 not conyinced by the explanation offered by the petitioners that the delav occasioned as a result of Dromise held to them and their representatives by 1+iie respondent authorities* Cause of action; if any^. arose to the oetitioners on the date of issuance of notification and since then. municiDal cor&oration has come Jnto existence bv fresh notification by the State ©oyemmentand the elections in the Municipal Corporation has already been held. Even otherwise from the averinents in the return and documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that the dectsion to include the disputed area in the municipol council was taken after following due statutory procedure by inviting obiections and considterina the same at the appropriate levet. The decision has been taken in the larger public interest by a'representative government. 8. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any ground for interfering with the notification of Annewre P-10 of the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission 5+096 itself on the around of delav and laches as also on merits. __- Roshan/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge