1^.....^ ^eS^ ^ls9^i>' ^ s ^•'^A '^ss^" ^AS'^.. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fQ No. ^^<h /2011 PETITIONER Raghubar Dayal Bedi,S/o Prabhu Dayal Bedi,Age about 68years, R/o Chandantal Road, Kharsia, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^' Municipal Conucil Kharsia, Through- Its Commissjoner, Kharsia, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) 2. ^ The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 3. ' The Collector Raigarh,Distt,-Raigarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION QF INDIA PETmQNER RESPONDENTS HiGH^OURT 0= CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETSTION (C) N0. 6538 OF 2011 Raghubar Dayal Bedi Versus IVlunicipai Council Kharsia & Others CvVrit Petition under Artide 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- 4. Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. Snri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State/ respondents No.2 & 3. ORDER (Passed on this 08m day of November, 2011) Chalienge in this petition is to the notice dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the petitioner has been asked to submit hss response on or before 24.10.2011. Thereafter, tne petitioner has submitted his response on 22,10.2011 and without waiting for the final order to be passed by the authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court on 03.11.2011 . ShriAgravval, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/(v1unicipal Coundi submits that no decjslon has yet been taken and there is no contemplation or intention to pass any order to demolish the disputed structure vvithout passing the proper oraser. The repiy ofthe petjtioner is stiil in consideration and the petitlaner approached this Court without waitlng for the proper order, v/nich amounts to misuse of judicial pfocess. Hovvever, Shri Agrawal, submits that the jViunicipa! Councii wili not take any actlon before considering the repiy ofthe petitioner and passing proper order. 1 have examined the facts and submission. !n course ofthe argument, Shri Snarma, iearned counsei for the petitioner submits that the Munlclpai Council., Kharsia has informed through beat of drum that asemolition wiil take piace today. However, according to him, the same was done only on 07.11.2011, when ihe petitioner filed this petition on 03.11.2011. Shri Agrawal strongly denled the same. After having examined ail theaspects of the matter, it appears to be a case v^here the petitioner has approached this Court without waiting for the prOper cause of action to Interfere in the admjnistrative functioning,which appears to have been done, in accordance with iav^. Thus, in order to discourage thls type of practice i.e. misuse of judiclal process, the petition is dlsmissed wth a cost quantjfied to be a sum of Rs. 2,500/-. Sd/- I SatishK.Agnihom Judge ^ 3'ShO'K