<J T ^ THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G. 3.§^&L 'T^" ? "^ ? tr^h ^r ff '^' •' TiTSONERS f^ClO^I Flledon....^.^- ^ .-- ,SM..-lQI^~2n-^'0 •—•• {k^-'f-s'-v-'y''^ L>&) R. to A.R.f.Jt Gajanan Patel @ Vinay Patel, son of Shri Kawaldhan Patel, aged about 41 years, resident of Near Ganesh Talab Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Prem Yadav, son of Shri Laxxi Yadav, aged about 40 years, resident of Rambhata Sanjay Ground, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Samim Ahmed, son of ri/lanjum Ahmed, agea' about 45 years, resident of indira Nagar Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Surendra Singh, son of Shri Laxmi Rawel Singh, aged about 55 years, resident of Bidpara, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, ChhatSisgarh. Ramesh Nishad, son of Makhanlal Nishad, aged about 27 years, resident of Kotra Road, Bavi'alikua, Raigarh, Disit. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh VERSUS it'fi-N i /-,u^ ' ^^^a' ^^ 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Urban Adrninistration, IVIantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Kaipur, Chhattisaarh Municipa! Corporation Raigarh, through The Commissioner, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Commissioner, Municipal Raigarh, Raigarh Distt Chhattisgarh 'ation Raigarh 4. Coilector Raigarh, DisH. Raigarh, Chhatfisgarh WR!T FETiTiO?. UMDER ARTSCLE 225 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF iND!A FOR'ISSUANCE OF APPROPRiATE.AKD^SUrrABLEVVRITS, DiRECTiQtl.OR DSRECTiONS, ORDER OR ORDERS (1) PARTiCUi.ARSOF THE PETITiONERS ^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH^iBILASRjR WRiT PETIT10N (Q N0. 3603 OF 2010 PETITiQNERS Gajanan Patel @ Vinay Pate! & RE; Others Versus State of (Writ Pet'tion under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India^ Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihbtri, J. Present:- Shri Amrito Das, Advoeat®for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao. Government Advocate for the State. Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the Municipa! Corporation Raigarh. &! \ ORDER{pRAL) (Passed on this 09'" day of August, 2011) Learned counssi ai3pearing for the oetitioners submits that the petitioners were in occupation of 'Gumties' for which they have paid fme, taxes ete. The, then, Collector, whi!e deciding to widen the road further decided to remove the Gumties of the petltioners, assuring them to provids aiternative accommodation elsewhere. Shri Das, further submits that the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1169/2010, wherein on t'ne basis of submission made by the respondents that the pending representation of the petitionere wouid be considered and decided within a period of four weeks, the matter Vi'as disposed of on 17.06.2010. However, the repressntations did not decide wsthin a oeriod of four weeks and an auction notice was issued on 03.07.2010. Having come to know that auction notice has been issued, the petltioners sent remmders on 03.07.2010 itself to th° MuniciDai Corooration Raiaarh. the same was rejected on an usuai ground that they can participate in the auction. The Commissioner, h/!un'clpai Corporatlon, has not considered at all the rights of the oeSitioner on account of the fact that they continued to be in possesslon of the Gumties with permission of the Corporation for a iong time and at Seast preferencss ought to have been gh/en to them whiie aiiotSing on suction. Shri Guru, learned counse! appesring for the respondent Corporation submits that there was no assurance in writing and what was assured bv the then Coliector, cannot be a ground for consideration or grariting any preferences to the petltioners. '"^••^, ^ ashok 4. Shri Sao, iearned counssl appearing for the State respondents submits that If it is so, the Coliector wou!d consider the representation, if the same is made within a period of one week, from today. Thereafter, within three weeks, as far as possible the case wil! be CQnsidered sympatheticaiiy. 5. !n vlew of foregoing, learned counsel Tor the petitioners submlts that the Collector may be directed accordsngly, as the petitioners wilt again make representation within a period of one week from today. The auction notlce which was stayed by this Court by order dated 26.07.2010. shall continue til! the decision is taken bv the Cotlector as aforestated. 6. Accordingiy, the writ petition Is disposed of.No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri