r o ) (-) '3 ; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION N0, "?-3 '?& _OF 2006 co PETITIONERS , :1) Tomar Singh Pal S/o Kartik Ram Pal Aged about 73 years R/o Tikra Para Raipur. K K "1 ^•^ ':>^ ^) -^s^ >'" ^ey Kunjlal Dhangar S/o late Bhuwan Lal Dhangar Aged about 55 years R/o Tikrapara Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS1. *^.' ......^•o^ ^'-'^ll^ 'l^? ,&w <...^N ?t.i-" s^ ^ / 1. Municipal Corporation Raipur Through: Commissioner Municipal Corporation Jaistambh Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Urbaa Development Admn.DKS Bhwan Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ss, V»»l BIi K® SSS3 liS i^^ 88 K'RI ^•' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE AND OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR ^^<^ DIRECTION/ORDBR^JN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. 7 uirsi^ r6-; •'r r; iRH sy-is IK 7386 OF Feiit'oners vsrsu; ;nrs^r^^ U«JIIUC Tomar Sinah Pai & Another Municipai Corporatio" Raipui Another WRiT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDL . AaralhotrL J. (Si\ M i.sau; Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Advocate forthe petitioners. Shri Pankaj Agrawai, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawver forthe State/ respondent No.2. CB./nOAi » /S".^->a^ /'" QS!:r! /4-t'.? /-.? f^^^]^^^ •^>A^ (irf8S360 CH Zu"" G8V QF UCiOD8r ^U11.^ iy this petition, it appears that the petitioners have approached this Court on eariier occasion bv fiiina a writ Detition, as Detitioner No.5 & 4 respectively, beinfl W.P.No.832/2004 for the identical relief. !n W.P.No.832/2004, this Court after having consldered al! the Issues, directed as under : "Now, coming to the questson of grant of licence to ffre psiitioners, the petitioners may apply for grant^'f licence for carry'ing on their business in fe.''j7fe of Section 255 of the Chhattisgarh Municipai Corporaeon Act. 1956 withm a penod of 15 days to the respondent No. 1 who shall provide the application form for grant of the licence to the pemsoners ana on suBmission or suc» aDDlicatiQns, resDondent No.1 should conslder their appiications and decide the same in accordance with law." 2. Thereafter. there is no disDute that the Detitioners have made the application and after consideration, the application was rejected by .' orde' dated 8.11.2006 (Annexure P-8 & P-9) and the petitioRers h-siva ^sr as unclsr:- ;h^f| thi^ Pini.irl' nnc'?2 ??n?sln fn'f th^ s^m^ rpll^f rsr^v^f? -^l ^^3 -^'^^;t t ^?^ !SnfS ^^C^^J \^1 L^?1i^ ^iu3?l^^ i'd?^! L^^CV^^^J 7 the licenss for Hatri Bazaar N sndents may be djrectsd to renew sate of mutton of ths petitioner at nd' Chowk T'karDara. 7.2. The respondents may be d'rected not to d.'sposes the petitioners from their premises 'under occupation othenvise than procedure establish by !aw. 7.3. 7/?e Hon'b!e Coiirt may be ,e appo'mt an jndepsndent committee so as to u'epare the different schemes at Raipur city and prepare the necessary schsme ror nosficatiori djfferent areas and grant of llcenses for sale of muttons. 7.4. Any other reijef as ths Hon'ble Court to deem fits undsr the facts ancf circumstarices of Ihe case. St ., nui 3. !n the instant case, there is no challenge to the iegality and valk the order passed by the Corporation pursuant to the direction di 2.8.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.No.832/200.4. This Court CE consider the Is-sue again and agaln in different petitions particulariy, vi/hen the order dated 8.11 .2006 is not under challenoe. f 4. Thus, for want of challenae to the order dated 8.11,2006 passed on the appijcation of the peti'tioners, this Court cannot adjudicste upon the issue. Accordingiy, the petition, be'mg dlsmissed. void ot merrt, ss nere&v 5. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ashok