u HK3H GOUm-J GHHAmS6ARH AT BILASPUR JiVRITBEaTIK^3fe5853<tf2Q05^^^^ * PEEmONER : Ajay SiaghdOuptaagedd5out62years^Late Shri Bahadur Sin^i Gupta, R/o Apainna Ward No. 31, Distt. Dwg, ehhattisgaifc VERSUS i:.:5. -^ :^..:i RESPONDENTS : 1. State of €hhatfasaifi. flnou^i: Seeretaiy LMaan AdtiaaBstratton,-' O.K.8. *-^tewaH,s Mantral^a.Qihattisgarii. ? s 2. Municipal <3<Mporation Dur& thr»i^: eommisaonet, Munieipal Cwporatioi^iDutg, Chfaattisgarh. ter 3. Executive Engmeer Town aai Munwipal eorporationDurg, Qitettis^di.; WRTTPETI'nONI^DERARTICLE 226^227 •••:':':'-':::119;''ffi[MA':?.': coNCTmjnoNCff SB: Hon'Ue Shri SattA K. Aanflwtel. J. Present: ^Nte.2 a.Z'&'^1 1. I SlmAshofcSQni^<Ad<^^ Slm^SJGacUtnrahi^ Shri Sagsy K-iiikgawal, Advocatefin'lhsrespMidenbND- ':'.l:.<MlAL-QBi»ERi^*.--.-.i:.. .• ':&.: .:^.a. :„• . ,• (Passed (»07"d^o€?Nov^$r,?2008) £t^ Withthe consent ofthe parties,the matteFislak^upferhearii^imaUy. By this petition, the petitioner inq)u@is the notice dated 24.06.2005 (Annexure P/l), wlach was issued by Munieipd Coiporation, Durg, under section 307 ofthe Chhattisgaito Municipal C<aporation Act, 1956 (for short 'flie Act, 1956*) for having comnutted violation of ttw provisions ofsection 293(1) and 294 offteAet, 1956 read vrifli secti<m 14 and 16 ofthe M.P. Laad Development Act, 1984. The petttioner filed *l-q>ly to Ihe said notice on 25.6.2005 (Annexure P/5). Without waiting fiu- > the decision &f the Muaieioal ConmussiQner. Ae petitiaier has L ,la:aaie; ;a^!^tE^:S% ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M^^8i^Si^^lil^^t^feiSS^i^^K^SsSSK^S&S^^ a^)roaehedlhi&:!@otu<tiiseduag a directia&to the r^pondenit €<M'pCTHrtion to ensure no demolition till the diq>osal offhis petition with regard to the petitioner's buil<Ung/shop, is done. Bethat as itmay, admuttedlyno dedsion onfiie repfy oftte petftioner has been taken and wifhout decision on the show-eause-notiee ai>d reply no order for demolition or otherwise may be passed. Admittedly, ao OTder for demoUtion oftfie petitioners scheduled property has been pasaed as on date. Therefore, the petition is in'enaature. However, Ihe petitioner has remedy under provisions ofseetiCTi 307(5) ef flie C.O. Muaieipal Cotporation Act, 1956 to take tecourae to Ihe jurisdictioaal Court for it^unction or otherwise, in Ihe event sm order of demolition or otherwise is passed by Ihe reqwndait Cwpor^on. In view of the foregoing, this petition ts disposed o£ The respondent- Coiporation shidl uot pass any order for danolition wifliout c<msideriag the reply/rep'esentation dated 25.06.2005 TliereafiCT, fhe pstitioner is at libaty to take recourse to statutory forum that may be available to him underfhe provisions oflaw. No order asto costs. ^.^^B——'' Satish K. Agnihotri - Judge .Anilt