Wv ^^B^. ^s^'" ^^y EJI IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Q N0. ^v\&o /20W Petitioner Shri Ranjeet Kumar Singh, S/o Shri ^a^e^-Singh, Aged about S^_ years, C/o Tikrapara behind police station, Tikrapara, Raipur-(C.G.), Presently residing at Near Hero Honda Showroom, Dhimrapur, Raigarh-(C.G.) Versus Respondents 1 >wa 2. ^yss^v i:sfl ilS.Su f 3. ^- 4. \^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Raipur, Distt.Raipur-(C.G.) The Comniissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt.Raipur-(C.G.) Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) The Zone Coran'iissioner, Zone no.4, Municipal Corporation Raipur, Distt.Raipur-(C.G.) The Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) The Excise Commissioner, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) Kiranmoyee Nayak, Mayor Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/3S?-QF THE 5. 6. 7. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HtaH (3QURT OF CroiATTISOARH AT BJUAgpURi WRIT PETITION fC) No. 34.6Q of201:l_0 PETTTIONER : Shri RanJeet Kumar Singh. VERSUS RbSPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WtrLPETITION UNDERAE.TICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUT:[QI->r QFINI))A SBLRon'ble Shrji Satish K. Agnihotri, J(, .l^S^ Presen.t: Shri Siiitil phvani, Ad'vocatefbr the petitiorier. i SUri NM.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1, 5 and 6. • Shri Pankaj Agrawsil, Advocate for the respondent No. 2, 3, ORDERfORAL) (Passed oh ld"'day of August, 2010) Challenge jn this petition is to the order dated 09.07.2010 (Annexiire P/l) issued by the Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 4, Municipal Corporation, Pi.aipur, whereby the petitioner has been dlrected to remo''i: the country made liquor shop within two days, which is beihg niii illegally at the Work Shop ofthe Municipal col-poration. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 to 4-CorpO]'ati(ii! \ submits the shop &ftTi<; petitioner wherein he was running liquor shop is unauthoriz.ed as no sanction was ever granted to nin Ihe said shop wlthin the Municipal Corporation Workshop. Shri Agrawal flirther submjts that the sti'ucture in dispute has already been demolished by the resporicleiTt- Corporation on 11.7.2010. On the other hancl, Shri Otvvani, leamed counsel for the petitioiiei" submits that the shop in dispute is being run for tlie last 15 years and has been altotted by ttie Assistant Excise Commissipner for Cpllector. Raipur. 1 On perusal of (he dQeuments, it is evident tha.t the place allotted to the petitiqner tbr running the said shop was surrounded by the Centiill Excis^) Colony on the north, Work Shop ofthe IS-Iunicipal CorporEltion ii] the Soutli, phhattisgarh Nagar on the East and Qld Dhanltari Road on the Wegt. The location of the liquor shop itself is in disptite as according to the respondent-Corporation, the shop is bemg ruri at. fhf Workshop of the M.unicipal Corporation itself. Thus, it is difflGult tb come to a conclusion asto where the said shop of the petitioner is situated as that ddes not tally with the area specified ii'f tlie license grant^d by the Assistanl: Commissioner, Excise for Collector (Aiinfixure P/2). In view ofthe foregoing, it is not possible to come to a finding, thus, tl woulcl be proper to direct the Collector, Raipw to look into the mattcr and pass appi'Qpriate order asto whether the shpp in dispute is unauthorized, or illegal. Thereafter, the resportflent-Corporation nla; take appropriate steps in accordance with law, 011 the basis ol the (ndei passed by the Gollector, Raipur as expeditiously as possible. With the p.foresaid observatton and dlrection, the writ petitioii is disposed oK | §(]/. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge