HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ PfetitioiifCtNo. 2938 of 2009 Ftetitioner Respondents Murli Verma, S/o Late DuKhurani Verma, aged 45 years, resident of Raipur (DaagaDya Dear Ashirvad Hospitafl Pd; Dindayal Upadhyay Ward, Distt. Raipur (C.&) Versus 1. Thc State of Chliattisgarh, fluouglt thc Secretaiy, Departtaent of Urban AdmuristeatMn aud Local Sclf D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 2. TBe Muiucipal Corporatfon Raipur; thixHigti its Conunissioncr, Muiucipal Corporation, Raipur(C.G.) 3. The Upayukt, MitDidpal Corpoiation, Raipiu-, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Revenue Authority, Mumcipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 5. TheAuthority Zone Ksiryalaya Zoiae 5 (five) Murucipal Goiporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CIdtiattisgarh) 6. TIieeSb]leCtor,RaqHii,Distt.Raipur(C.G.) 7. MulaeshSterma, S/o Shri Satyaaarayan Sharma, aged 43 years, residcnt of Brahmanpara iu finut of buflding Dr. Btaagwant at Raipur, Distt. Raipur(G,@.) 8. Dr.NaliiuMadhariya,^agedabput48;years, Director of Ashuvad Hospital at Raipur, Dtett. Raipur (C.G.) 9. Dr. S. N. Madharya, ayed about 51 years, Ashirvad Hospital, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CUhattisgart^ 10. The President, MuDicipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipiu' (Chhattisgart^ WRFT PETrTONUNDERARnCLE226 OPTHE C;ONSTrrUTION OF'INDIA (SB: HonTile Shri SatishK. Agnihotri J.) ShnS.K/Daaseiia,Advocateforthepetitioner. 1 SbriArun Sao, Govt. Advocate fbr4he respondents No. 1 and 6. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate wifh Ms Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents No; 2, 3, 4, 5 and lO.i ShriM. K. Bliaduri.Advocate forfhe respondent No. 7. Shri R. K. Kesheiwam, Advocate fov thc respoiideuts No. 8 and 9. u -^. ORDERlOTdn (Passed on this 9th day ofJuly, 2009) Heard. By this petition, the petitioner daiBas a rdief tbat the respondents/authorities xaay be directed not to deinoUsh fhe residential house of the petitioner, wifhout foUowu^ (hc provisions oflaw aud principles ofDatiu-aljustice. Shri H. B. Agarwal, leamed Semor couasel with Ms Mcera Jaiswal, teamed counsel appearing for the respoadents/Corporation submits that at present, there is no proposal to demoUsh fhe hoiise of| the petitiuncr. Tbe representation made by the petitioner along wifh other persons is pendit^ coasideration aad no steps wouU be taben before decislon on the said represeiitation. Decision, if asy, iwiU toe taten on fhe representatton after afifordu^ proper oppdrtumty ofhearmg. In view ofthe clear and categorical statenient inade by learaed counsel for the respondents/Cdrporation, relyiag onthe retum dated 8.7.2009, filed ou fheir behalf, fhe petltion has no ment, as the petitioner has pleaded the facts which are not ia existence at all. In vtew of fhe foregoir^;, the petitioa is dismissed. teterun order dated24.6.2009 is vacated. No order asto costs. Thakiu- SatishK.Agnihotrii| Judge