\j^<a*. ^ '.V ^ s' /^; 'Ia," HIG-H COURT OF CHHATHSGARH A'TBILASPUR (Division Bench) Coram: Hon'blc ShriJagdish Bhalla, Ag.C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. V/rit Petition fP.I.L.l No. 6162 of 2006 Petitioners a. Basaut Sharma, Aged about 41 ycara, S/o-late Shri U. L. Shanna, R/o- Jabdapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilasplir (C.U.) Nandrani Madawa, Aged about 63 years, S/o- late SlT- Oij.li- Lalli Raiu Madawa, K/o- Bchiad Indra Vibar Colony, Bundhwapaia, Sarkaiida, Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus Resipondents 1. State of 2. o <-»< 4 Chliattisgarh, Ttirough ttic Sccrctaiy, Urban Developmeiit Ministty, D.K.S. Bhawan, Kaipiir {C.U.} Municipal Corporiation BUaspur, Through The Conunissioner, District BUaspur(C.a.) CoUector, BiSaspur, District Bflaspur (C.G.) Mayor in council, Municipal Corporatiou Buaspur, District Bilaspiu- (C.G.) 5. Saajay Agrawal, Aged about 40 ycars, S/o- Stu-i Stiyam Agrawal, R/o- Vidyaaagar Near Agrawal Bhawan, Bilaspur, Uistrict Uilaspur WRIT PKTTTIOW UBDBR ARTICL-E- 326/227 OF THS CONSTITDTION OF IKDIA Shri 1'rateck Sharma, Advocatc fbr thc pctitioncrs. Shri U. N. S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 and3/State. Shri P. Diwatear, Senior Advocate with. Shri Asliutosh Siagh Kachwaha, Advocate for fhe respoudents No. 2 and 4. Shri Mateen Siddque, Advocate for the respoiident No.5. J ^v: "^ > l^ ORAL ORDER (Passerf on this 24& day ofOctober, 2007) The foUowing oral order offhe Court is passed by Hon'ble SIai Ja^ish BhaBa, Acting C.J. The petitioners have availed remcdy by inaking representation (Annexwe P/9) to fhe State Govenu&ent. It is maudatoiy upon thc State Govenunent to consider and decide fhe matter in fhe Ught offhe provisions ofSection 421 offhe Chhattisgarh Municipal Coiporation Act, 1956. Accoriingfy the interest of justicc wfll suffice if the Statc Govenuneat consider an.d decide fhe inatter in accopdaD.ee wifti law. However, ttte counsel for fhe petitioncr submits that fhe petitioners would Uke to make a -fresh representation because still certaui points which wcre not iacluded in thc representatwn (Annexure P/9) are to be raised. We do not find any reason not to aBow the petitioners to make a freah representation. Accoidmgfy, fhe petitioners may inake a fresh representation withia a period of 15 days 6'oxa today. Thereaftcr the Sfate Govenunent shaU coiisnler and decide the saine by passing a speaking order, expeditiousty, preferably within a period of fhree laonfhs finm fhe date of receipt of the representation, after al&tding opportunily to fhe Muiucipal Corporation, Bflaspur to put forward its case. Witti fhe above observatk>n fhis writ pctition is disposcd af. ~\ ! s : s / l: sk > h k; s %yy t^.-»A^ ^ It ia clarified fhat it would be open. to th.e petitionera fo ffle fresh petition if they are aggrieved by the decision ofthe State Goveraiaen.t on fheir represeutation. Tfae oral prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners fhat the amount of Rs. 5000/- deposited as 'security deposif be retumed, We do itot find any giound for the reason that the petitioner hiaiself has atready appnoached the State Goveminent, fherefore, there was no question offiling this writ petition. It appears that due to the reasoas kaown to the petitioners, without waitmg to the oider of the State Govenuaeiit, the petitioners have approached this Court. !f the petitiouers had grievance that the State Govermneut is aot decidiag fhe matter, fhey could have only filed a writ petition prayia^ for a direction to the State Govenunent to decide their representatioa. The saine was not don.e aad this petitiou has been ffled. Tfaerelbre, the prayer for refuad ofsecurity deposit is rejected. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri <f!^ri JlAtfU^l