HIGH COURT CF CH HATTI$GARH: BILA$PUR Writ Petition No. 670 of 2003 Petitioners 1. Mahipat Rao Sfo. Shri Late Gajadhar Rae} aged about 82 years. 2. John Phiiip S/o. Late Phitip, aged about 71 years. AH Rio. Jhoparapara, Watd No‘55 of Munkcipa! Corpomtion Biiaspur, Tahsi’ & Chhattisgarh. ' District Biiaspur, Versus 1* State of Chhattisgarh through it’s Prinaipa! Secretary, Dept. cf Ravenue, $take Secreiariai, D.K.S.’ Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Union of india, through its Secretary. Depit. Of Raiiways, Carma} Secretariat, New Deihi. 3. South Eastern RaiMay, Zone Bilaspur, through its omcer-in-charge, Bilaspur, CG. ' 4. Divisicna1 Railway Manager, Biiaspur, Railway Division, Dist: Biiaspur (CG). Distyict Coliector, Dietrict Biiaspur (CG. Commissiener, Municipal Cerporation, Biiaspur. f m Responden$. 0)!)1 (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of Constitution cf India) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. MK. Baeg, counsel for the petitioners. , Mr. Vivek Verma, counsei for the {Jnion of indie. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, counsel for the Municipat Corporation. ORAL cRoER (Passed on this 3‘“ stay of November. 2908) The petitioners, who claim to be the residents of Jhoprapara, Ward No.55, Municipai Corporation, Biiaspur, have preferred this petition stating epecificaiiy that no order or notice in writing has been served on the petitioners. The Raiiway Authorities are warning the petitioners to vacate the entire Jhoprapara viiiage by 17-2‘2003. in the prayer, the petitioners have not sought for any reiief in respect of their properties or : alieged apprehension from demolition of their properties. The petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents not to demoiish the houses/buiidings of the petitioners and other viiiagers, situated in Jhoprapara, Tripur Sundari Ward No.55 of Municipai Corporation, Biiaspur and further to cancel the ailotment of the land to the railway authorities. I 2) Mr. A.S. Kachhaweha, learned counsel appearing for the Municipai . Corporation and Mr. Vivek Verma, leamed oounsel appearing for the Union of india would submit that no notice has been issued, no warning‘has been given and no action has been taken tiil date, demoiishing the strueture of the petitioners or any structure in Ward No.55, Municipal Corporation » Jhoprapara: Biiaspur. Thus, the petitioners have no locus etandi to fiie this petition on behalf of the other petitioners/viiiagers when the counsei appearing for the petitioners categoricaiiy submits that the petition is not in the nature of public interest litigation. 3) in view of the foregoing, it appears that it is misuse and abuse of judicial process. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost quantified to be a sum of Rs.50001—. Consequentiy, M.W.P.No.574 of 2003 also stanobdismissed. \ i r / Sd/~ i Satish Judge K. Agm'hotri //(/‘1 \WT, p /V‘ Jr Raju \ \