HIGH COURT OF CHHATT2SGARH: BSLASPUR Writ Petstion No. 81 of 2005 Petitioners 1. Harsjmran Kaur Chawia, w/o. Harbansh Singh Chawia, aged about 44 years, r/o. Devendra Nagar, D-24, Sector-3, Raipur (CG). 2. Harjeet Kaur, w/o. Shri B.S. Chawla, aged about 54 years, r/o. Sai Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG). Versus Respondents 1) Ralpur Development Authority, represented by its Chajrman c/o. R.D.A. BuildSng, Bajrang Market, Raipur (CG). 2. MunlcipaS Corporation, Raipur, represented through Its Commissioner, l^unscipal Corporation, Jaistabh, Raipur (CG). 3. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Urban Department and Admjnistratlon, DX.S, Bhawan, Raipur (CG). (Writ Petltion under Articie 226/227 of Constltutlon of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satssh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Qautam Bhaduri, Advocate forthe petitioners. Mr. H.B. Agrawal. Sr. Advocate with IVIs. Rinki T^mrakar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. Ashish Shrivasteva, cou»piselfor the responcient No«1. ?Vlr. Arvlnd Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on thas 3rd day of February, 200S) The petitioner, by thjs petition, seeks the foiiovving reliefs: 2) "7.1. The respondents or thelr servants or any agents may be restrainsd by prohlbltory order not to d©mollsh the shops as shown in annexurs P-1 and comprised over piot No. C-159/1 at Scheme No.16, Katora Taiab, Raipur till the appiication iiled by ihe petitioners for regularization of superstructure is finaliy decided by Dlstrlct Regularization cn Its ments. 7.2. Any other relief as the Hon'isie Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case." 3) On perusal of the papers, no wrlt can be issued in the nature of prohiblting the respondents not to demollsh the shops as shown in Annexure P/1. However, iearned counsei appearing for the petltloner submlis that the impugned proposed - @ action is Hkeiy to be inltiated agalnst the petltioner as no order in wrltlng has been passed to the petltioner. 4) Be that as it may, since nothing is on record, except orai threat as submitted by the petitioner, no order can be passed. However, on the request of iearned counsel for the petltioner, libes'ty is reserved to the petitioner to make an appiicatlon before the concerned authority for considering his oase for regularization of the plot aiiotted to his predecessor, in accordance with iaw. in the event, representatlon Is made, the same shall be consldered and decided on Its own merlts, In accordance with lav^, as early as possible, preferably within a period offour weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5) AccordingSy, thls petition is dismissed wlth the aforesaid IJberty. Consequentiy, M.W.P.No.78/2005 aiso stands dismissed. f Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Raju^