SINCIE c^ THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &b^> W. P.fC) N0. /2010 PETITIONER c^^^y .+" ^<<-^^r SE-C' : ^f Ww^ : / Om Prakqsh Tawari, S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Tawari, aged about 58 years, R/o Saja, Tahsil - Saja, District - Durg, (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :/1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary, Departmen.t of Urban Administration & Development^ D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (C.G.). ^2. Coilector, Durg (C.G.) 3.5ub Divisionai Officer (Revenue), Saja, District Durg (C.G.) ^4. Chief Municipal Officer, Saja, District - Durg, (C.G.). /5. President Nagar Panchayat Saja, District - Durg, (C.G.). \r^y^^ ^Xte^ ^. ^ z. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF TH_E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PARTICULARS OFTHE PETITIONERS : As stated above. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS : As stated above. 3-. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDERS AGAINST WHICM THE PRESENT PETITION IS BEING MADE : ^ffss^. 8i<8!irf3rSi J ^ '^!!'SSSvS~s-e'''A' '&t .1^ 'i'l -S; iii fe'y'ui l"inwt w itw©w«G ntt@R®HHaM s<3fl«HdCTan.^ !ii^^UiS^^^SSSiSii:i^i^^ PetUloner QmPrafcasttTawari ;: •••:;• !Verst ^::.^',y. :,,.:.\.:'<,';.'1-:,'';'1^ {:.~": lte^»on(tents State of Shhatfisgarh & Others WRn-PETITlONt)iyDERARTICLE22^2TOI?tHEGONSTlTUtl^ :-;:;;,<SB;itiott^.Mr.:Si^»it'K.Agn^^ ,EE^(aiMt^;ySmt?R8nullSoGlraR^»ro<atel:ft^ ShnPXBNK^itBane|l»(i^ft)r^ Sfarte. .- ,:.'- •^.::iGit »aRSltt.tfe.l;.:?;':..: .:', .::.:^ ,•: ;•• •^ . :.1: (Passecion^yt11<lay^of!Nov^^ 1. By this prtiUon^ ttie p^ionw aaeklng a^^^^ mandapusdfEBdBriig^^ fl^rketsi^^ ^nsftuctedmark^iat Kliasra1^22^M Raktia ©.Wftettem •'~^2.~-;:''-:l^med'<»ynsi^|i||^|||^;^^ ,:;^:[';^^«y&nerls>tmi|r^tti!^^^^r^ ? rnarlt^ antf^^ thalt^iriarketig^^ 3. ^nrtt.|^hgir,^fuitiertake®^W^ issu^ Isy lrtfiogTi|ti<:>|| O^^ Nagar Panohgyat, ^i|a, ©istnct Duig,t<|orw^Ram ^^a}o,j^i^ ^pro|l£^i^shi an^ been corrmiunicateKl^tfteState^Smt.K^ tliHt#isvieiatf(mof^rovl|!orKS;^^ ^^^^^^^^ ::: ;::1».•^6^;wt)^;^r^^es:%;|^|!|lisllmiieW|;^^ • ":l'"sMjfl^'of;iT^rl^;ftionrda;^^^ ~'^- ^y •ias». ii :^ ;^,>,^^,^^t!>r. ^•^s^s^ 4. Be that as it may, the cpntention of teamed ceunsel for the petitioner that there is a vtolation of Section 259 of the Act, 1961, deserves to be rejected on the ground that it is frwolous, as it is not applicable to the case on hand. This is for the Nagar Panchayat to decide asto how many martcets they require for the purpose of catering needs of the public arti secondly it te also for the Nagar Panchayat to decide a^to whetha' the old market should or not continue, looking to the public interest. The petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of having shop in the old market. If the petitioner is claiming any right derived from his title or ownership, the appropriate forum would be competent Civil Court not the High Court under Arttele 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto c<»ts. Sd/- Satish K. AgniS'.otri Judge i:-;3ROI<