RESPONDENTS ,,.•• V \^v 5^y f!y^^' ^•^p';' .,•'" VJ': op~^:: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1^30 OF201KS.B.) PETITIONER : ^ Mukesh Sharma S/o Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, aged about 44 years, R/o in front of Dr. Bhagwat Bramhin Para, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS , 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Urban Adniinistration and Local Self, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G^.). 2. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur, through its Comaiissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.j. ^ 3. Narayan Prasad Verma S/o Late Dukhuram Verma, aged about 58 years; 4. Murli Verma S/o Late Dukhuram. Venna, aged about 45 years; 5. Dashrath Verma S/o Late ^Dukhuram Verma, aged about 41 years; All are R/o Ward No.69, at Shanti ViB&r Colony, Danganiya, Raipur, Tahsil and Distnct Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. As given in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS. As given in the cause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER.AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE (SUBJECT MATTER IN B.RIEF1. Tbe instant'writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not bei&g filed agamst any particular order (s) but by <' •^ aS§i:£te:-22 y ff y^ •y^ snt?;^r I^TO'an^I ^rqwBfta ~3 r 'SIWM^, 'gTitWTS, fsfiti'yy <y w*Rir »-*<ict!^...^^M.l2^ sn^i'FRiw^ifsg potide: Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Shri Suiyalsant State/respondent No. 1, on Leamed counsel for petition was filed by the p No.2/Municipal Corporatioi|i dated 2.3.2009, ia which; being taken against respoti constructioii is m violatior) Corporation, which illegal to the public at large. Vide was disposed ofwith a diref: t.o decide the representatio^ merits. Leamed counsel for tl though, fhe Corporation ha[' action in implementation o| conteiapt. petition was al<( Corporation and on 13th Ji by the counsel for respon^ has talcen appropriate illegal construction. In vi contempt proceedings were colunsel respon^ent actioh •WlfrFfN timcff •? •fe'st tfSRSR ^3lf;OT31I^?T ,J. for fhe for fhe petitioner. Itishra, Panel Lawyer ^.dvance copy. petitioner submitted that earlier a ^etitioner for direction to respondent i, Raipur, to decide the representation [fhe petitioner had prayed for action >tidents No.3 to 5, aUegmg that their of sanctioned plan approved by the 4onstruction is causing inconvenience i|)rder dated 7.5.2009, the writ petition ;tion to respondent No.2/Corporation |i in accordance with law, on its own jie petitioner submits that thereafter, (s taken a decision ia the matter, tlie {" such decision is not being taken. A to filed against the officials of fhe ^tuar^',2010; the statement was made t-cofltemnor that the Corporation b and has taken a decision to i-emove }ew of such statement made, the propped. [^^fe'ir XI-:^C-22 aTr^I^Bl f?IR;3][I^I iffHR?^ftg i!l'1 F'ra'v'ees. -^St '^\M\vm, 'grftWTS. fadl'My SV^f TRra? 141MCTI ftlltth "WI, 200 wllien comiriunictation Leamed counsel for D respondent-Corporation is pl^ the Court. He submits fhat wifh reference to stetement was made before fU taken for removal of fllegal than one year, fhe responderj steps. Taking into consideratioij counsel for fhe petitioner and passed in W.P. (PILj No.2360/!09 2010 passed in Contempt C^a^e direct respondent No.'2/Corpo^ accordance wifh law, in view made by the counsel for recorded m. order dated 13th No.308/09. In case the respondenl action, the petitioner would be| remedv as mav be available tt> undertakiag. With the aforesaid ob' disposed of. •*llfd<il-l t|IH<rtf'? feiA <r«lt$lt '^aifigqSD^t 1|he petifioner submits fhat the l^ying game of hide-and-seek with the conteinpt petition was liled dated 5th January, 2010, C^)Urt that the decision has been c|onst.niction, but, even after more ^te-Corporation has not taken any r|i fhe subinissions made by leamed ]perusing fhe order dated 7.5,2009 and order dated 13th January, (C) No.308/09, I am inclined to ^•ation to tajke appropriate action in lof the iindertaldng and statenient |t.he respondents/contemnors, as ?, 2010 in Contempt Ca.se (C) january, -Corporation does not. take any a.t fiberty to take recourse t.o such him under the law for breach of ervations, the petition is flnally SA/- %ap.indra Mohan Shrivastava Judge