é§§§f§égi§ 355Whi IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) - WRIT PETITION {Cl NO. 9L] 2010 f, Sri Sai Turbo Services, a proprietorship concern, through Shri C.S‘K. Nayudu, son of Shri C.R.R. Nayudu, Shop No. 59 & 60, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Shopping Complex, Vapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh PETITIONER VERSUS ef' / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Urban Administration and Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya‘, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS i/gzxiw" 2. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, through its Commissioner, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh _V_\IRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA OR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE AND SUITABLE WRITS DIRECTION OR r IRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS i y / F WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6992 of 201_Q PETITIONER : Sri Sai Turbo Services. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. , WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri,_J. Present: Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. for the State. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent No. 2&3. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUK ' ORDER QORALI (Passed on 02" day of December, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P/l) has bee passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and as such, the same is Vitiated. 2. On the other hand, Shri Kachhwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3 submits that before the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing toput forward his case, but the fact remains that the occupation of the petitioner is unauthorized as the term of the agreement had already come to an end. However, Shri Kachhwaha further submits that the petitioner would be afforded one more opportunity to put forward his case, within a period of 10 days and no action shall be 3. Shri Das submits that in view of the foregoing, nothing survives taken before decision is taken on his reply. for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent No. 2 and 3 shall not take any action against the petitioner, till any decision on the response of the petitioner is taken which may be submitted by the petitioner, within a period of 10 days from today. Satish K. Agnihotri} Judge ,- Sd/- .H,