'^ ^^ c^ r<i<90^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Writ Petition No.485} / 2005 / Nagar Jheriya Yadav Samaj Nawapara Rajim through its President Vikram Chand Yadav. S/o Shobha Singh Yadav, Age-65 Yrs.Address- Netaji Hotel, Bus-stand, UP- Tahsil - Nawapara, Teh -Abhanpur, Distt. -RaipurPIN-493118. VERSUS 3 Respondents ^•••;'^.. ..^c^ ^^^f^ -^' L;^>-> 1. Municipal Council, Gobra- Nawapara, Through - Chief Municipality Officers UP- Tahsil - Nawapara, Teh -Abhanpur, Distt. - Raipur PIN-493118. 2. HorUal Sahu S/o - Ghur Ram Sahu, Age - 43 yrs., UP- Tahsil - Nawapara, Teh -Abhanpur, Distt. - Raipur PIN - 493118. ^'^ ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ^'D HIGH COURT OF CHRA.TTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4891 of2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Nagar Jheriya Yadav Samaj Nawapara Rajim. VERSUS Municipal Council, Gobra-Nawapara & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ,, Shri Y.C.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. None for the respondent No. 2, despite ser^ice ofnotice. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 30th day of November, 2010) 1. The case ofthe petitioner is that the respondent No. 4, Horilal Sahu filed a Public Interest Litigation petition in this Court being W.P. No. 4366 of 2005. This Court, vide order dated 16.09.2005 (Annexure P/2) disposed of the said petition at the motion itself without setting aside the order ofallotment passed in favour ofthe petitioner herein. The said order reads as under: "We, therefore, dispose ofthis writ petition at this stage with a direction that the petitioner will make a representation before the aforesaid Municipal Council of Gobra, Nayapara stating his objection to the proposed allotment of the land in favour of respondent No. 6 within 10 days from today and ifsuch a representation is filed by the petitioner, the Municipal Council of Gobra, Nayapara will consider the said representation and take a decision within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt ofthe representation by the Municipal Council of Gobra, Nayapara. Till such decision is taken by the Municipal Couneil on the representation of the petitioner and the decision is communicated to the petitioner., no further steps will be taken by the Municipal Council, Gobra, Nayapara pursuant "•:":^. ^' ;\ ^- '^ \^J/ ^^:-^.fr^" 4. to the said resolution No. 14 for allotment of the land to the respondent No. 6. The Municipal council, Gobra, Nayapara will take the aforesaid decision without being influenced by any extraneous considerations and strictly in accordance with law." Shri Raja Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without filing any .representation or without considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent-Municipal Council passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/l) directing the petitioner to remove its possession from the property in question. Shri Sharma further submits that there is neither an order of this Court nor there is a representation by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1, and further, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and further, the impugned order is based completely on misunderstanding or misinterpreting the order dated 16.09.2005. Shri Y.C.Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No. 1- Municipal Council, fairly submits that there was no such order of this Court and the order impugned was passed, it appears on the basis of wrong interpretation or mis-understanding of the order dated 16.09.2005, passed by this Court. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2, despite service of notice. However, return has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, wherein it is categorically averred that the respondent No. 1 has misconstmed the order passed by this Court on 16.09.2005 in W.P. No. 4366 of 2005. The impugned order may be treated as a fresh resolution. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the ff^^:, rf: 'fe'.s ~""y p ••-'—-y^' 6. 7. ^•1 communication dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/l) ofthe Municipal Council to the petitioner is contrary to the direction and observation made by this Court in the order dated 16.09.2005. The fact has been admitted by the respondent No. 2. The averments of the respondent No. 2 that this is a simple notice, thus writ petition should be dismissed, deserves to be rejected as the notice is not for taking a decision but for removal ofthe possession. In view ofthe foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/) is quashed. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit