y ^ ^^C$"i<\p-"" ^f"®^""• ^-y IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. '" -' v / 2010 ^•-" ^??' IN THE MAHER OF: PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENT: M/S Deepak Advertisers, Through Its Proprietor Deepak Thawani, S/o Shri Harikishen Thawani, Aged about 27 years, R/o Opposite Apna Bazar, Katora Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 1. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Through Its Commissioner, Office at Malviya Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner, The Munidpal Corporation, Raipur, Office at Malviya Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh t 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Town & Country Planning Department, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Office at Malviya Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Shri Shiv Nayak, R/o Tatyapara Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION ORORDERIN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI ^-1 ^ "SfiB^ g/^ LMJ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER •WRIT PETITION (CLN0.4656 0^2010 M/s Deepak Advertisers Versus RESfONDENTS Amit The Municipal Corporation, Raipur & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 19th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. On bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it appears that the petitioner has installed a hording in the premises of Home Guards without obtaining permission of the Municipal Corporation. One of the conditions of grant of permission by the District Commandant, Home Guard, Raipur, was that the petitioner has to obtain permission and registration for advertisement bythe Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pole of hoarding was erected when the petitioner made an application to the Municipal Corporation (Annexure - P/6) for grant of permission and registration for advertisement. 4. It appears to be a case where without obtaining permission of the Municipal Corporationand registration for advertisement, poles for hoardings were installed. From any angle, this act ofthe petitioner cannot be protected. The action itself is illegal. The petitioner should not have installed even poles forthe hoardings without prior permission and registration for advertisement from the Municipal Corporation. 5. In view of foregoing, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in this petition and the petition is dismissed at the threshold. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge