^L.S-.- :\ t^. HIGILCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W. P. (CJJfo. 792 72010 PETITIONERS ^~> 1 Rakesh Kumar Shukla, s/o Late Susheel Kumar Shukla, aged about 55 years, r/o Baikunthpur, Gaushalapara, Occupation Wholesale Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 2 Chandramma Rathore, Late Lal ji Rathoure, aged about 18 years, R/o Patel, Colony, Moudhapara, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil SE District Raigarh. 3. Bhuvneshwar Rathore, s/o late Lal ji Rathoure, aged about 21 years, r/o Patel Colony, Moudhapara, Occupation Wholesale Fruit Vendor, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh. 4. Laxmin Bai Rathoure, w/o Late Lal ji Rathoure, aged about 50 years, r/o Patel Colony, Moudhapara, Occupation Wholesale Fruit Vendor, Tahsil Sc, District Raigarh. 5. Abdul Gaffar, s/o Late Shekh Abdulla, aged about 55 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh. 6. Siraj s/o Late Badruddin, aged about 60 years, R/o Kaya Ghat, Occupation, Fuit Vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 7. Sadhuram Kahar, s/o Arjun, aged about 41 years, r/o Sonurauda, Rajiv Nagar, Occupation, Fruit Vendor, Tahsil 8s Distt. Raigarh 8. Pawan Kumar Gupta, s/o Mahendra Sao, aged about 33 years, r/o Kotra Road, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh. 9. Manoj Gupta .s/o Mahendra Sao aged about 38 years, R/o Kotra Road, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil 8s Dista-ict Raigarh 10. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, s/o Visheshwar aged about 47 years, r/o Kotra Road, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh W.P.ICl Nos.792/2010. 880/2010 & 1016/2010 11. Ghanturam Kahar, s/o Arjun, aged about 34 years, R/o Sonurauda, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 12. Manturara Kahar, s/o Arjun, aged about 33 years, R/o Sonumuda Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 13. Rajendra Prasad Katiyar, s/o Chhotelal Katiyar, aged about 55 years, r/o Baikunthpur, Occupation Beetel vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 14. Vishnu Prasad Sriwas, s/o Late Prabhat Chaudra, aged about 57 years, r/o Purani Hatri, Occupadon Fruit- vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 15. Moh. Fakira, s/o Sattar, aged about 35 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 16. Saleem Shahzada s/o Mohammed, aged about 30 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh. 17. Mehmooddin s/o Siraj, aged about 30 years, r/o Kaya Ghat, Occupation Hotel, Tahsil and District Raigarh 18. Noon Bai w/o Chamru Sahees, aged about 25 years, R/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 19. Radhika Bai, w/o Late Lallan Sahees, aged about 65 years, R/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 20. Sharda D/0 Late Lallan Sahees, aged about 25 years, R/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 21. Durga Bai, w/o Raja, aged about 30 years, r/o Jagidipa, Occupation Fruit- vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 22. Sultan Khan, s/o Late Sikandar Khan, aged about 55 years, R/o Bajirao Mehra Para, Occupation Hotel, Tahsil and District Raigarh RESPONDENTS W.P. (0. Nos.792/2010. 880/2010 & 1016/2010 23. Irfan Khan, s/o Late Sikander Khan, aged about 28 years, R/o Kaidi Muda, Occupation Hotel, Tahsil and District Raigarh 24. Mohd. Subrati s/o Noor Mohammad, aged about 65 years, R/o Beed Para, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 25. Ramula Bai, w/o Dallu Sahees, aged about 50 years, R/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 26. Naan Bai, w/o Phirtu Sahees, aged about 35 years, r/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 27. Wali Mohammad, s/o Subrati, aged about 35 years, R/o Beed Para, Occupation Vegetable Vendor, Tahsil 8s District Raigarh 28. Niyazuddin, s/o Siraj, aged about 32 years, R/o Kaya Ghat, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil 8s District Raigarh. 29. Abdul Sattar, s/o Late Sheikh Abdulla, aged about 65 years, r/o Indira Nagar, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 30. Imtiyaz Khan s/o Sultan Khan, aged about 30 years, r/o Kaidi Muda, Occupation Hotel, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh. 31. Kanchu s/o Santosh Sidar aged about 42, R/o Bajirao Mehra Para, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil 6s District Raigarh. 32. Narendra Tiwari, s/o Ganesh Prasad Tiwari, aged about 24 years, r/o Sonumuda, Nayapara, Occupation Provision Store, Tahsil 6s Distt. Raigarh. Vs. 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through :- Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through the Commissioner, Raigarh (C.G). i^y%'' ^^!/ W.P. CC). Nos.792/2010. 880/2010 & 1016/2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS W. P (C YNo. 880/2010 1. Ghanshyamdas Jagyasi, s/o Late Nihalchand Jgyasi, aged about 64 years, r/o Chakradhar nagar, Sindhi Colony, Occupation Betel & Provision Shop, Tahsil 8s District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Rajesh Jagyasi, s/o Ghanshyamdas Jgyasi, aged about 38 years, r/o Chakradhar Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Occupation, Betel & Provision Shop, Tahsil 8s District Raigarh (C.G). 3. Kailash Jagyasi, s/o Ghanshyamdas Jagyasi, aged about 34 years, r/o Chakradhar Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Occupation, Betel 8s Provision Shop, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G). Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Departraent of Urban Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G) PETITIONERS / / W. P|C I No. 1016/2010 1. Virendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Ram Khilawan Mishra, aged about 38 years, Occupation : Potato merchant 2. Pushpendra Mishra, s/o Ram Khilawan Mishra, aged about 40 years, Occupation Potato Onion nierchant 3. Laxmi Narayan Kachwaha, S/o Changa Prasad Kachwaha, aged about 45 years, occupation Fruit Vegetables Merchant 4. Bharat Kumar Kachwaha, s/o Krishna Kumar Kachwaha, aged about 24 years, Occupation : Fruit Vegetables merchant 5. Ravi Kumar Kachwaha, s/o Krishna Kumar Kachawaha, aged about 21 years, Occupation Potato Onion merchant 6. Abhilash Kumar Kachwaha, s/o Krishna Kumar Kachwaha, aged about 20 years, Occupation Potato tomato t^ ^ •-.^ / W.P. (0. Nos.792/2010. 880/2010 & 1016/2010 RESPONDENTS Merchant 7. Goverdhan Bareth, s/o Shri Ram Bareth, aged about 18 years, Occupation Toniato Merchant 8. Ankush s/o Rainniwas, aged about 24 years Occupation Vegetable Merchant All are R/o (working place at) Sanjay Complex Sabji Mandi, Raigarh (C.G). Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Departanent of Urban Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G) WRIT^ETinON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Vipin Punjabi, counsel for the petitioners in W.P (C ) No. 792/2010 &W.P.(C) No.880/2010. Mr. Nilkanth Malviya, counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1016/2010. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Mr. B. D. Guru, counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. ORALORDER (17.03.2010) SUNILKUMAR SINHA. J. \ r^ Heard. Since these three petitions have been filed relating to a common cause of action against the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are small shopkeepers who are running their shops in Raigarh. According to the petitioners, they are running their shops in Sanjay Complex, Raigarh. T ^-'••-sa, . ••^ 1 S 8 /?-' W.P. (C\ Nos.792/2010: 880/2010 & 1016/2010 They have filed these petitions apprehending forceful eviction by the Corporation from their places on which they are running their shops. After issuance of notice to the respondents, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, has filed its return in W.P (C ) No.792/2010. Paras 2 SE 3 of the return read as under: "2. It is submitted that the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/vendors by placing misconceived and incorrect facts. Where the petitioners are operating their respective business the answering respondent is not at all disturbing them and presently there is no proposal for evicting the present petitioners. 3. It is submitted that if the area/premises in which the petitioners are operating their respective business for their livelihood is required in future by the answering respondent for any purpose, the petitioners will be rehabilitated properiy by allotting them proper place and they will not be disturbed in any manner from earning their livelihood. Hence the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation submits that the Corporation has similar stand in two other writ petitions i.e. W.P(C ) No. 880/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 1016/2010 though no separate returns have been filed in those writ petitions. In light of the contents of the Paragraphs 2 SE 3 of the return of the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, filed in W.P.(C). No.792/ 2010, it is clear that presently the Corporation is not at all ijdisturbing the petitioners and there is no proposal for evicting them r;/ s f 1 "'e " •*^y W.P. (Q. Nos.792/2010. 880/2010 & 1016/2010 from the place occupied by them. It has further been submitted that if such an exigency arises in future, the petitioners will be rehabilitated properly by allotting thera proper place. Mr. B. D. Guru, counsel for the Municipal Corporation also subruits like the above. In view of the above factual scenario and the categorical statements made by the Corporation by filing its retum in W.P(C). No.792/2010, which stand they are also taking in other writ petitions, as stated by the learned counsel for the Corporation; according to the leamed Counsel for the petitioners nothing survives for adjudication by this Court. The writ petitions, therefore, are disposed of at this stage. However, the pedtioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court as and when such an exigency arises in future. No orders as to costs. Sd/- „ s^^ Judge Rao