HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.6784 of 2009 PETITIONER PR. Korram. Sio Shri Dhansingh Korram, Aged about 38 years, Occupaticn - Chief Municipai Officer, Dantewada, Resident of ‘F’ Type — 1, F-1, South Bastar, Dantewada, District — Da‘ntewada (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Public Administration and Deveiopment. D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Commissioner, Public Administration and Development, Secretariat, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Coiiector, South Bastar, District Dantewada, (Chhattisgarh) 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dantewada, District — Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETlTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.D. Waswani. Govt. Advocate with Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. 0 R D E R - (Passed on 27m November, 2009) Heard. 1. By this petition ‘under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus against the authority for illegal action of eviction from public premises. 2. Counsel for the respondents has not filed the response till today. 3. Counsel for the petitioiner vehemently argued that present petitioner was working as a Chief Municipal Officer, Dantewada was transferred to ' Municipal Bacheli in the year 2008 and after his transfer in the year 2008 QO ..g\~ from Dantewada to Bacheli he had retained the premises of Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada. Vide order dated 21-07-2009, present petitioner was suspended _by respondent No. 1 and he was attached to the office of Regional Joint Director, Public Administration, Raipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide order dated 09-11-2009 respondeot has directed to vacate the public premises otherwise evict the premise by use of police force. Counsel for the petitioner aiso submits that respondents had not complied the provisions of Section 4 of C.G. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (for short ‘the Act') and not competent to pass the order against the petitioner for eviction. Counsel for the applicant further submits that they may be directed to quash the notice dated 09-1 1-2009 and permit to retain the public premises. 4. On the other hand counsel for the respondents opposed therpetition and submits that although they have not tiled any response but the document filed on behalf of the petitioner are sufficient for disposal of the petition and further submits that petitioner was transferred to Bacheli in the year 2008 and he was not entitled to retain any public premises after his transfer to Bacheli at‘Dentewada. He is not working in Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada. Vide order dated 21-07-2009 (Annexure P/2) he was suspended by the respondent No. 1 while he was working at Bacheli and he was attached to the ofuce of Regional Joint Director, Public Administration. Raipur. Petitioner was required to reside Raipur at his headquarter. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submits that proceeding under provision of the Act was initiated against the applicant, notice under Section 4 of the Act has been issued to the applicant vide letter No. 461/dtd 26-08-20089 and No.683/dtd. 17.09-2009 but same has not been replied by the petitioner and finally order was passed on 24-10-2009 and eviction notice has been issued on 09-11—2009. This fact find is support from the Annexure Pl1, P12 and P/3 Q\ flied on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for respondent-State further submits that the petitioner has made his representation vide Annexure P/3 dtd. 28-10- 2009 in which he has admitted that he was transferred from Dantewada to Municipal Committee, Bacheii in the year 2008 but he has not evicted the premises of Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada even tiii 21 -1 0-2009. 5. On peruse! of Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/3 fried on behalf of petitioner, it is clear that on 21-07-2009, petitioner was not posted at Dantewada he was posted at Bacheli and he was not entitled to retain the premises situated at Dantewada vide order dtd. 21-07-2009 after suspension he was attached to the office of Regional Joint Director, Public Administration, Raipur he was required to stay and reside at Raipur not Bacheli at Dentewada. Annexure PM dated 09-1 1-2009 reveal that show cause notice has been issued earlier on 17-09-2009 but same has not been replied and the order for eviction proceeding again notice has been issued to the petitioner. This fact to establish that respondents have not acted in prejudicial or arbitrary manner. They have acted in accordance with law neither they have exceeded jurisdiction vested on them nor failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on them, warranting issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is without substance and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 6. No order as to cost. Sci/- T.P Shanna Judge