IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS ‘ AT BILASPUR w.1>.(C)N0. EZW§ /2009 Nagendra Kumar Singh S/o. Shyam Narayan Singh, Aged aboutv39jye‘eu‘s, R/o Navapara Akashwam Road Amblkapur Pohce Sianon & Tah31l Amblkapur D15tr1ct SurgLua (CG) VFRSUS PETITIONER State of Chhattlsgmh hhamsg“‘h Secretaly, Govt of C. Al‘ban Admmlsuatl Development Departme ur lsxf Bhawan Mantralaya Ralp igt Ra1pur (CG) Co 10am Ambikap Dlsmct Sulguja (CG) Mumcxpal Corporauon, Amblkapul thlough Commlss10ne1 Mummpal Corporation, Ambimpuy :VD1‘stnct Surguja (CG) Commissioner, Corporation, Ambikapu Surguja (CG) -8c ury Deputy Director, Town nt- Planning, District Office, Korba, . ‘District Korba (CG) ‘Sufgujva, _ WRIT.__ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE u , i CONSTITUTION OF INDIA G H ‘ o n m i W HEGH CGURT GF CHHATTESGARH : BELASPUR 3inaie EenchrE-EoWbie $hri Manindra Mahan Shrivastava, J. WRIT PETIT§0N (Ci NG.2&i75i2Gf)§ . {Writ Pemion under Articie 22$ & 22?of the Co Shri M V‘ Paranjge, counsei for ihe petmoner. ngtimfbn of inciia} Shri Ajay DwivedE, Deputy Government Advecate fer the Siate/respcndents his-KL is No.3 & 4. tions - from Smf. Hamida Siddiqui, ’ m B; P. Banjare, counsei under instruc c04n$eé fer responder‘ GEN. G§§E§ {Pass'ed on 13‘ March, 2m 1*; Hearé . 2‘ Though, ii'me was granied to respondents No.3 & 4 to fife regaiy, tiii date, m repiy has been fiied. Though a prayer has been made by Seamed counseé for respondent No3 and 4 for gran? of further adjournment, oonsiciering the nature of iitigafion, f am not incffned to granf further time. ‘3. - The petitioner, by this petitfon, cafis in question t‘ne iegaiity and vaiidity of No.3}; 4‘ in proceeding to demoiish the construction raised by the petitioner under notice of demoiition dated 26-03-2009 {Annexure ' Pui) and 06-6‘52039 (Annexure P-2). action of the respondents 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tne petitioner is a registered owner of the iand bearing K Navapara, Akas'nwani Road, Ambikaiour. Attenpurcnase of the ianoi under a hasra No.3/85 0,924 Acre situated at PE?iTiGNER Nagendra Kumaf Singh Versus RE§PGN3ENTS State of ChhaWsgar‘n and gq regiswred saie deed, the petitioner appiied for'and obtained buéding permission i irom the Municipai Corporatb'n, Ambikapur and "the map was aiso sanctioned by the Deputy Direcmn Town and Ceuntry Pianning. After map was sana'tioned, the nei'itéoner raisecé constmciion 0f hE$ house on his own ianci A aotéce was issued i0 the pewioner an 26-G3~2GQ€1 requiring the petiéioner ta remove construciion to ihe exterit ii ebeiructs Ehe road. The petitioner was required to submit his repiy in three days and it was further stated in the notice that if the repiy is net found satisfactory, the Cerporation wouici preceeci to take action for removai of the 60n3‘IVUC‘EiGi”; A 41‘ 5‘ After notice was receivee' by the petitioner, a deteiied repiy was submitted to the respondent~Corporetion by the petitioner vide his repiv Annexure PE: wherein the petitioner eiaberatei‘r submitted that he hae raised construction strictiv n acoorcience with the buiiding oermission and sanction granted to him and he has not encroached upon the road. Thereafter the Corporation without “oonsidering the repiy submitted by the petitioner, without carrying out any spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner and without there being eny material based on such spot inspection and report. another notice was issued to the petitioner on IDS-052009 (Annexure P-Z‘) which is a mere repetition of the eariier notice anci does not contain anything to show that the repiy fiieoi by the petitioner / was oonsitiereo‘. (I 6. Learned oounsei for the petitioner argued that the respono'ent—Corporation having eariier issued notice on 26-03—2009 caiiing upon the petitioner to show oause and the petitioner having submitted a repiy, the respondent authority were r ohiiged to consider the same before issuing the impugned notice dated 06vt‘i5- x 206$ Learned counsei next submitted that in a mechanicai fashion, the second iI {M notice has been issued without due appiica‘iion 0f mind to the repiy submifteci by ihe petiiioner. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that the subsequent impugned netice elated 06-05—200§ (Annexure P-2) nowhere efates that the repiy eariier filed by the netitioner was considered. 7.. Gn ihe other hand, iearned State counsei submitted that as the matter retates to demoiition proceedings initiated by the Corporation 0n t'ne anegatrons regarding encmachment'of pubiic road by the petitioner, it is tor the Corporation to defend the action initiated by it. g. This Court had granted time to t‘ne respondent-Corporation to fite repiy, but no reoiv has been med. From the notice dated 2d—0‘3—‘2G0é (Annexure P-t), it is reveaied that the resoondent—Coreoration atieged that the petitioner had raised construction, which is in vioiation of Section 293 and 3522: of the Municipai CorpOra‘tion Act. 1‘956. {in short “the Act of who”) and the petitioner was oaiied upon to rite his repiv. it was aiso stated that in case, repiy of the petitioner was hot found satisfactory, proceedings under Section 3:22 of the Act of twee wouid he drawn. Thereafter, the oetitioner submitted a detaiied representation before the Corporation which is pieced on record as Annexure P-5. A perusai of the said reoiy shows that the oetitioner had taken specific defence by stating that he has raised construction strictlvti/n accotdance with the buiiding oermission and sanctioned map granted to him and that he has not encroached upon any pubiio road. This stand of the petitioner prima facie appears to be worth consideration in View of the documents which have been piaced on record by the petttioner whtcn showsthat the petitioner had purchased the iand under a registered saie deed and various sanctions were granted to the petitioner and finaiiy buiiding permission was aiso granted to him. Therefore, the respondentCorporation was --, under an obHgation to duiy consider the representation of the petitioner and take CiemSIOi’l theFeUpOH. 9. From impugned notice dated 03052009, it §s reveaied that referring to ihe eariier notice dated 26-03-2009, i'nere is nothing to Show that the repiy eubmiiied by the peiiiioner to show cause noiioe dated 26-U3~‘2009 was considered by t'ne respondent-Corporation. The impugned notice dated 06-05-2000 on fne face of it! a mere repetition oi the eaiiier notice dated 26-33-ZUU3. i0. Aii said and done, on the'tace of repiy fiieci by the petitionei, learned counsei for the respondent—Corporation has faiieci to estabiish before this Court that pursuant to show cause notice dated 26-03-2000, reniy submitteci by the petitioner wae considered betore issuing the impugned Show oause notice dated 05—05-2000. it. Therefore, i have to hoid that the respondent—Cornoration piooeeded to issue the impugned notice dated 06—05—2000 without any consideration of petitioner’s repiy pursuant to show cause notice dated 26-03—2009. Hence, action of the respondent—Corporation appears to be quite arbitrary. irrationai and cannot be sustained in the eye otxiaw'. Consequentiy, the imrougned notice dated 06-05—2000 is deciared iiiegai and is hereby set aside. The petitioner having submitted a detaiied repiy, the respondent—Corporation is under an obiigation to consider the same and take decision thereupon and wouid he at iiberty to proceed further, in case, it is found that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section 453 and 322 of the Act of i955 whiie raising construction of r hi5 i'iQLiSGA ,-.. 172. in View of foregoing, the petition is ailowed to the extent indicated Hei'emabove. NO Oi’dei's as 10 C0312. Sdl— a Moha“ Shr’WaSta Judge Man'md" Deepii v