1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) N0. (1^\^ /20 10 I PETITIQNER: RESPONDENTS : \^ r-\^v... -:-:"""r. ^^••:^- ^.-•-" ,. .,. \3"- ^......°' ^^""......--'/^v^ ^sA..'-*"'^ -- 4. Sadruddin Tharani, S/o Hasam^JBhai Tharani, Aged about -"^©years,R/o - Old Bus StandFDurg, Tahsil 85 District - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Municipal Corporation of Durg, Through Its Commissioner, District - Durg St^.te of Chhattisgarh, Tl-irough: Secretaiy, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Durg (C.G.) The Nazul Officer, Durg (CG) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2'26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ Arun HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2615 OF 2010 PETITIONER Sadruddin Tharani Versus RESPONDENTS Municipal Corporation of Durg & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of tndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ^. Present:- Shri Santosh Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 2nd day of December, 2010) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to prohibit the respondent authorities from demolishing the shop and cause any forceful eviction from the shops comprised over plot No. 14/1 admeasuring 837 Sq. ft. at Sheet No.7 of Nazul situated at Old Bust Stand at District Durg (C.G.). 2. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, submits that there is no reason asto why the Corporation would not comply with the provisions of law while taking steps to demolish the structure or evicting the petitioner from the structure in question. The Corporation would afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any action against the petitioner, which prejudices cause ofthe petitioner. 3. It appears that there is no initiative on the part of the respondent authorities and even no step has been taken in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition. 4. Even otherwise, if in future some steps are taken to demolish the shop and cause any forceful eviction from the shops, the same shall be done in accordance with law by affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. In view of foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- _ . SatishK.Agnibot"