¥ —-s^ '*». y HK3H COURT OF CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRFT pErmoN No. isz OF 2006 Dr. Anju Goyal, aged about 45 years, w/o. Matay Ranjan Goyal, R/o. Chopdapara, Ring Road, Amblkapur, District Surguj (CG). Versus 1. State of Chtttrttisgarh, through Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 2. Municipal Cwporation, Ambikapur, through its Commisstoner, Ambikapur, Distrct Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporatrion, Ambijkapur, District Surguja (CG). 4. Assistant Engineer, ^4unicipal Corporation, Amblkapur, District Surguja (CG). 5. S.D.O. Ambilapur, District Surguja (CG). 6. Director, Town & Country Planning, Raipr, Distt. Raipur (CG). (Writ petition underArticle 226/227 oftheCon^itution of India) Singte Bench: Hon'ble ShriSatish K.Agnfhoh'i, J. Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjape, counset for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer forthe State. Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for respondents No.2,3 & 4. ORALORDER (Passed on this 22nd day of January, 2009) Wrth the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finalty. 2) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 submits that the impugned nottee dated 11-1-2006 (Annexure-P/5) issued by the Commissioner.Muracipal Corporation. Ambikapur, has been ^ayed by this Court by an order dated Raju 2-- 13-1-2006, therefore.no action could be taken. It is furttier submitted that the Municipal Corporation may be permitted to issue fr^h nottee and after hearing the parties at lengtti pass appropnate order. 3) In the tight of the above categoricat ^atement made byleamed counset for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 accorcUng to leamed counsel for the petitioner, ndhing surwves in this petition for adjudteation. 4) In view of the fbregoing, the imptgned nottoe dated 1 1-1-2008 (Annexure-P/5) stands qusshed. However, liberty is reserved to the Munteipal Corporation, AmtMkapur, to issue fresh ndice, if so advised and pass appropriate order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petftioner. 5) Accordingly, the petitiw ^andsdisposed of. 6) Consequently, interim orderp^sed eariier stands,vacat«land the pending appllcations, if any, glso stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge l^