"y^" ^Tpn^n, ^t^m^, f^fi^y ^ ^Wqyfl •^[ 200 ^?r Tra^ ('<3^35^) ^I^T^T^W ^n^ni^^^' WWR^ft'cTai^ Writ Petition (Ct No. 1266 of2009 FSinele Bench: Hon*ble Mr. tfustice Dhirendra Mishral PETITIONERS 1. 2. 3. Shriram Gandhi, 4^ Cloth Mef India, Da^ Jogendra Harbhajaiji years, R/< Shyam Harkeshwter years, R/i Dist. Bila^ RESPONDENTS Vs 1. 2. 3. 4. The Commissi( (CG) The Join Planning Bilaspur (< ^j'?-ii<ri^i'TT??3=?^ff ^ 'fe^l'^rfw^' ^ ^Rm >3^i pandhi, S/o Shri Bhagatram (ged about 48 years, Occupation ^chant, R/o Infront of Bank of d-alband, Dist. Bilaspur (CG) Singh Chawla, S/o Late Shri i|i Singh Chawala, Aged about 51 ^ Dayalband, Dist. Bilaspur (CG) pu. Gupta, S/o Late Shri Prasad Gupta, Aged about 30 ^) Hathri Chowk, Juna Bilaspur, ^pur (CG) State of Cjhhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Urban A|iministration & Development Departme^it, DKS Bhavan Raipur, (CG) The Collec}tor, Bilaspur (CG) Muijiicipal Corporation, Through t>ner, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur Director, Town & Country Authority, Bilaspur, Dist. 4.3.2009 J Shri GSAhluwalia, coun^el for the petitioners. Shri AS Kachhawah^, Dy. A.G. for State/respondents. the ^fRT^ ^^ ?i^ir^[T^RI:^Tf^—FS/9S—11/2008—1,90,000. -3^^l^i<vl^/'^T?^/M<y1l^ifT WH<w^*tr^s •-^ 200 an^T'ii^r (<^i^^) a^T^T^W ?CT3??t^T^"RW [shop constructed by the pet: land, which was allotted to t |open auction. Further praye 'espondents be directed to re: (providing alternate plot. Learned counsel for the ^RiTW^f^ W^I The petitioners have fil^d this petition and prayed br restraining the respond^nts from demolishing the |that in Writ Petition No.l40p/98, the petitioners were |also arrayed as responden- jdispute in the said petition Jsame between the same partie jdisposed of vide order d< [Annexure P/4) on the basis ^ounsel for the respondent IM pilaspur (respondent No.3 he] J2 of the order of Annexure P/ Thus, in view of the dispjosal of earlier writ petition JDetween the same parties, w ^l^lld^T 'RP^f ^ft^ iFsi^K ^^tfOT 311^1 tioners on the government lem after due procedure of has been made that the Labilitate the petitioners by >etitioners does not dispute |s, subject-matter of the jwas also substantially the ^; and the said petition was [ted 9th February, 2009 of submission of learned jo.S-Municipal Corporation, }ein) recorded in paragraph ^iich involves substantially :he same dispute and the same relief, the petitioners ^annot be permitted to agitatej the same dispute again by ^iling a fresh writ petition. J Accordingly, the instant t3etition is dismissed. ^n^Y-? ^^ H^ir<^T?wri;^N—FS/95—i 1 /2008-1,00,000. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^