-Si«M..-i»ais.5.y-»d2<i»iui *te»CT ^•^^..^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W. P. (C l No. 792 /2010 PETITIONERS 1 Rakesh Kumar Shukla, s/o Late Susheel Kumar Shukla, aged about 55 years, r/o Baikunthpur, Gaushalapara, Occupation Wholesale Fruit Vendor, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 2 Chandramma Rathore, Late Lal ji Rathoure, aged about 18 years, R/o Patel, Colony, Moudhapara, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh. 3. Bhuvneshwar Rathore, s/o late Lal ji Rathoure, aged about 21 years, r/o Patel Colony, Moudhapara, Occupation Wholesale Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh. 4. Laxmin Bai Rathoure, w/o Late Lal ji Rathoure, aged about 50 years, r/o Patel Colony, Moudhapara, Occupation Wholesale Fruit Vendor, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh. 5. Abdul Gaffar, s/o Late Shekh Abdulla, aged about 55 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh. 6. Siraj s/o Late Badruddin, aged about 60 years, R/o Kaya Ghat, Occupation, Fuit Vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 7. Sadhuram Kahar, s/o Arjun, aged about 41 years, r/o Sonumuda, Rajiv Nagar, Occupation, Fruit Vendor, Tahsil 85 Distt. Raigarh 8. Pawan Kumar Gupta, s/o Mahendra Sao, aged about 33 years, r/o Kotra Road, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh. 9. Manoj Gupta s/o Mahendra Sao aged about 38 years, R/o Kotra Road, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh 10. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, s/o Visheshwar aged about 47 years, r/o Kotra Road, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh ^;;-^^^'-- .^ W.P. CQ. Nos.792/2010. 880/2010 & 1016/2010 11. Ghanturam Kahar, s/o Arjun, aged about 34 years, R/o Sonumuda, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 12. Manturam Kahar, s/o Arjun, aged about 33 years, R/o Sonumuda Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 13. Rajendra Prasad Katiyar, s/o Chhotelal Katiyar, aged about 55 years, r/o Baikunthpur, Occupation Beetel vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 14. Vishnu Prasad Sriwas, s/o Late Prabhat Chaudra, aged about 57 years, r/o Purani Hatri, Occupation Fruit- vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 15. Moh. Fakira, s/o Sattar, aged about 35 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh ^ 16. Saleem Shahzada s/o Mohammed, aged about 30 years, R/o Indira Nagar, O.ccupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh. 17. Mehmooddin s/o Siraj, aged about 30 years, r/o Kaya Ghat, Occupation Hotel, Tahsil and District Raigarh 18. Noon Bai w/o Chamru Sahees, aged about 25 years, R/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 19. Radhika Bai, w/o Late Lallan Sahees, aged about 65 years, R/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 20. Sharda D/0 Late Lallan Sahees, aged about 25 years, R/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 21. Durga Bai, w/o Raja, aged about 30 years, r/o Jagidipa, Occupation Fruit- vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 22. Sultan Khan, s/o Late Sikandar Khan, aged about 55 years, R/o Bajirao Mehra Para, Occupation Hotel, Tahsil and District Raigarh '^^ '•^, '^ RESPONDENTS W.P. (Q. Nos.792/2010. 880/2010 & 1016/2010 23. Irfan Khan, s/o Late Sikander Khan, aged about 28 years, R/o Kaidi Muda, Occupation Hotel, Tahsil and District Raigarh 24. Mohd. Subrati s/o Noor Mohammad, aged about 65 years, R/o Beed Para, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 25. Ramula Bai, w/o Dallu Sahees, aged about 50 years, R/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 26. Naan Bai, w/o Phirtu Sahees, aged about 35 years, r/o Jogidipa, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 27. Wali Mohammad, s/o Subrati, aged about 35 years, R/o Beed Para, Occupation Vegetable Vendor, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh 28. Niyazuddin, s/o Siraj, aged about 32 years, R/o Kaya Ghat, Occupation Fruit Vendor, TahsU 85 District Raigarh. 29. Abdul Sattar,s/o Late Sheikh Abdulla, aged about 65 years, r/o Indira Nagar, Occupation Fruit-vendor, Tahsil and District Raigarh 30. Imtiyaz Khan s/o Sultan Khan, aged about 30 years, r/o Kaidi Muda, Occupation Hotel, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh. 31. Kanchu s/o Santosh Sidar aged about 42, R/o Bajirao Mehra Para, Occupation Fruit Vendor, Tahsil & District Raigarh. 32. Narendra Tiwari, s/o Ganesh Prasad Tiwari, aged about 24 years, r/o Sonumuda, Nayapara, Occupation Provision Store, Tahsil 85 Distt. Raigarh. Vs. 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through :- Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 2. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through the Commissioner, Raigarh ••^,.. "f;yf^-. S^sff^^ ^ .^ W.P. (C\ Nos.792/2010. ^80/2010 & 1016/2010 •••^^^^ PETITIONERS v. RESPONDENTS W. P (C t No. 880/2010 1. Ghanshyamdas Jagyasi, s/o Late Nihalchand Jgyasi, aged about 64 years, r/o Chakradhar nagar, Sindhi Colony, Occupation Betel & Provision Shop, Tahsil & District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Rajesh Jagyasi, s/o Ghanshyamdas Jgyasi, aged about 38 years, r/o Chakradhar Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Occupation, Betel & Provision Shop, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh (C.G). 3. Kailash Jagyasi, s/o Ghanshyamdas Jagyasi, aged about 34 years, r/o Chakradhar Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Occupation, Betel & Provision Shop, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh (C.G). Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, . through Secretary Department of Urban Administration, D,K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G) PETITIQNERS llNWlUB^k" W. P(C 1 No. 1016/2010 1. Virendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Ram Khilawan Mishra, aged about 38 years, Occupation : Potato merchant 2. Pushpendra Mishra, s/o Ram Khilawan Mishra, aged about 40 years, Occupation Potato Onion merchant 3, Laxmi Narayan Kachwaha, S/o Changa Prasad Kachwaha, aged about 45 years, occupation Fruit Vegetables Merchant 4. Bharat Kumar Kachwaha, s/o Krishna Kumar Kachwaha, aged about 24 years, Occupation : Fruit Vegetables merchant 5. Ravi Kumar Kachwaha, s/o Krishna Kumar Kachawaha, aged about 21 years, Occupation Potato Onion merchant 6. Abhilash Kumar Kachwaha, s/o Krishna Kumar Kachwaha, aged about 20 years, Occupation Potato tomato "^ filsgPti "^'•: : ^ W.P. (C\ Nos.792/2010. 880/2010 & 1016/2010 Merchant 7. Goverdhan Bareth, s/o Shri Ram Bareth, aged about 18 years, Occupation Tomato Merchant 8. Ankush s/o Ramniwas, aged about 24 years Occupation Vegetable Merchant All are R/o (working place at) Sanjay Complex Sabji Mandi, Raigarh (C.G). RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Urban Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Vipin Punjabi, counsel for the petitioners in W.P (C ) No. 792/2010 8s W.P.(C) No.880/2010. Mr. Nilkanth Malviya, counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1016/2010. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Mr. B. D. Guru, counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, ORAL ORDER (17.03.2010) Heard. Since these three petitions have been filed relating to a common cause of action against the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are small shopkeepers who are running their shops in Raigarh. According to the petitioners, they are running their shops in Sanjay Complex, Raigarh. ^ ^1P^"1 ^ ^•..•sy W.P. (C\ Nos.792/2010, 880/2010 & 1016/2010 rto' They have filed these petitions apprehending forceful eviction by the Corporation from their places on which they are running their shops. After issuance of notice to the respondents, Municipal Cprporation, Raigarh, has filed its return in W.P (C ) No.792/2010. Paras 2 8& 3 of the return read as under: (<2. It is submitted that the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/vendors by placing misconceived and incorrect facts. Where the petitioners are operating their respective business the answering respondent is not at all disturbing them and presently there is no proposal for evicting the present petitioners. 3. It is submitted that if the area/premises in which the petitioners are operating their respective business for their livelihood is required in future by the answering respondent for any purpose, the petitioners will be rehabilitated properly by allotting them proper place and they will not be disturbed in any manner from earning their livelihood. Hence the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation submits that the Corporation has similar stand in two other writ petitions i.e. W.P(C ) No. 880/2010 8s W.P;(C) No. 1016/2010 though no separate returns have been filed in those writ petitions. In light of the contents of the Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the return of the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, filed in W.P.(C). No.792/ 2010, it is clear that presently the Corporation is not at all disturbing the petitioners and there is no proposal for evicting them '^M&. :^" :^.^ ^ b ^y-. ^ f^. W.P. fC). Nos.792/2010, 880/2010 & 1016/2010 from the place occupied by them. It has further been submitted that if such an exigency arises in future, the petitioners will be rehabilitated properly by allotting them proper place. Mr. B. D. Guru, counsel for the Municipal Corporation also submits like the above. In view of the above factual scenario and the categorical statements made by the Corporation by filing its return in W.P(C). No.792/2010, which stand they are also taking in other writ petitions, as stated by the learned counsel for the Corporation; according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners nothing sur^ives for adjudication by this Court. The writ petitions, therefore, are disposed of at this stage. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court as and when such an exigency arises in future. No orders as to costs. Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge Rao