$1“L19}! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.7250 of 2009 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Present: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, P. L. for the State/respondents No.1 & 2. ORAL ORDER (1 1-1 2-2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner by the instant petition has prayed for the following reliefs:— \\ PETITIONER: Narayan Prasad Yadav, S/o Late Paras Ram Yadav, aged about 42 years, Carporator, Ward No.26, R/o Risda, Bhadrapara, P.S. Balco Nagar, District Korba (CG) -Versus- RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public Health and Environment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (CG) 2. The Collector, Korba (CG) 3. The Electricity Board, Through the Chief Engineer, C.S.E.B., Korba(CG) 4. The National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Korba (CG) 5. Municipal Counsel, Korba, Through: the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Counsel, Korba(CG) k4 ”2/ o “That, this Hon’ble Court may kind enough in caning the entire record concern with the action of the respondents. o That, this Hon’ble Court may kind enough in making high power committee for examining the prospects and results of the action of the respondents as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of Goda Verman. o That, this Hon’ble Court may kind enough in restraining the respondents from raising the height of the ash dam. That, this Hon’ble Court may kind enough the quashing the action I order of the respondents, by which they have initiated the work. o Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem ht in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be given to the petitioner in the interest of justice by the Hon’ble Court.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.3 and 4 have constructed one ash dam near Ward No.26 where the petitioner resides. There was an agreement between the residents of the Ward and respondents No.3 and 4 that height of the ash dam would not be raised any further, however, in violation of the aforesaid agreement, ignoring. the objections of the petitioner, who is Corporator of the said ward, the aforesaid respondents are raising the height. The action of the respondents in raising the height of the ash dam would put the residents in dangerous condition. 4. Shri Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Corporator of Ward No.26 of Municipal Council, Korba. Section 123 deals /with the duties of the Municipal Council. ¥¥V’\ ‘ 5. Referring to clauses (e), (f), (i) & (I) of sub-section (1) of Section 123, it was argued that as a Corporator of the Municipal Council, Korba, a duty is cast upon the Councii to regulate or abate offensive or dangerous trade or practices and to remove the obstructions from the public place for enjoyment of the public. To remove dangerous places and reclaim unhealthy localities etc, the petitioner has submitted various representations to the authorities copies of which have been annex with the petition, however, the ed respondents e not considering the objections and even Municipal Council is not discharging its duties under Section 123 of the Municipatities Act. The action of the espondents in raising height of the ash dam would put the Iife and liberty of the petitioner and other residents of the ward in dangeru condition. . The petitioner has accompan various bjections submitted by the residents and copies of the photographs of the place where ash dam is located, however, there is no document available on record that there was any agreement between the residents of he wa‘rd and respondents No.3 & 4 whereb the respondents had agreed not to raise the eight of the ash dam. here is no documentary evidence available on record to show tha T t respondets No.3 and 4 have decided to raise the height of the ash dam and have entrusted the said work to any agency. 7. That apart, the petitioner is espousing the cause of the residents of Ward No.26 in the interest of public at large. He cannot be termed to be aggrieved party in person. 8. lt is settled law that except in the case of petition for writ of habeas corpus ’and quo warranto, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable only at the ar r os ied o t y h n instance of a person aggrieved personally. The instant petition at the instance of the petitioner, not in the form of Public Interest Litigation Petition, is not maintainabie. 9. in the result, the petition is dismissed as not maintainabie. 1/ iraMisiwa? BX“ 'ren ’“dge