UVA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W‘P_N0. “769 OF 2002 Prakash Chhabaria Son of Shri Shyamdash Chhtabaria, adult resident of Cloth Market, Pandri, Raipur Smt Sandhya Chhabarla . Wlfe of Shrl Rajkumar $ $9 g9 Bhagat adult r631dent o? Cloth Market Pandr1 Ra1pu é, Hemant Kumar Chhabaria, Son of Shli Shyamdash Chhabaria, Cloth, Market, Pandri, Raiput. ' PETITIONERS VERSUS «a»? ”wRa1H1? umc1pa1 Corpn A g orporate Const1tuted The Relevant rovisions Of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 Having Its Office At Malviya Road, Raipur Through The Commissioner of Raipur dé . The Commissioner, Raipur Municipal Corporation, XMalviya Road, Raipur. State of Chhattlsgarh m Secretary, \ A Ministry of Local Self Government, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. RESNDNT POES ON UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF WRIT PETITI THE CONSTIT WRITS I FOR THE DI WRITS . OF MANDAMUS UTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE N THE NATURE OF PRHOIBITION RECTIONS ETC. AND / OR FOR ORDERgs) Hi3 *7 OR IN THE NATURE O THE .... . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPI JR WRIT PETITION N0. 769 of 2002 PETITIONER : Prakash Chhabaria & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Raipur Municipal Corporation. & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri: J. IJresent: Shri Vivek Chopfia, Advocate appearing on behalf of §jarf B.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petltloner. Shn' P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 215‘ day of July, 2010) l. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant petition was filed on 11.04.2002 seeking a writ/direction to quash the order dated 01.04.2002 (Annexure P/9) whereby a notice under section 307(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act, 1956’), was issued to the petitioner for demolishing the structure in dispute on account of being unauthorized constructions. However, no steps have been taken by the Corporation till date. 2. In View of the above, the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to make an application under section 308—A of the Act, 1956 for compounding of the offencesiif any, committed by the petitioner in constiuction ofthe building. None appears on behalfofthe Municipal Corporation/respondent No. 1 and 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 3 has no obj ection. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforestated liberty, if so advised. if“; Satish K. Sdl- Agnihotr" l l Judge l