^i v^, i'J"^ J ^' r^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. 35B4- /2004 PETITIONER ^y ^' RESPONDENTS ^ ^^Vidya Kiran Shikshan Samiti ...<<<^ i>\*>^>-" y Through its President ^^Q^ ^ Govind Magar, aged 32 years, S/o Near Old Bus Stand, Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through secretary Education Departm.ent D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^<Lu^v/^ 2. Chief ^ynicipa f]icer Janpad Panchyat, Kurud Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 4. Chhattisgarh Secondary Board of Education, Through Secretary Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Lt^--.^-s>'..--— ^ XI-HC-22 w^r^r f^Tf^3TT^T St5^Icb^cT 3^" ^ii^Kn^, ^'rfI^^Ko, Tctdiy^i [?TM5|ch ^w^n ^w^ ---------j^^ ^QQ "' id^ 3:n^T?!RTT^R:^f?cT 10-3-2005 Mr. C.R. Sahu, counsel for^he petitioner Mr. Sanjay 8. Agrawal^ respondents No.1 & 3. Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mrs. Usha Chandrakar, coi, The petitioner has preferrejd the Constitution of India, being 9-2004 (Annexure P-5) and petitioner has been asked to vac^ and three daysrespectively, from Brief facts leading to filing) Kiran Shikshan Samiti is runnins the same is recognized by respc+ident in the school. Respondent No.^ Panchayat, Kurud, entered into out the Panchayat Bhavan to the |petitioner for of three years and on 25-7-2002 five years extension was granted| for quashment of the above notic^s and contrary to the conditions 2002. Retum has been filed on| been mentioned that the buildingj thereafter for housing the Court|'oom, they are entitled for eviction. 1 hav@ heard leamed coun* chl^f^l^1T1 ^(^^T^:fe^t<f^|^|< ^3Tf^T3TT^T Government Advocate for the State/ couns|el for respondent No.2. (hsel for respondent No.4. re|d this writ petition under Article 226/227 of by the show cause notices dated 4- 13-9-2004 (Annexure P-6), whereby the ^te the premises in questlon within 15 days the date of receiptofthe notice. |of this writ petition are that petftioner Vidya a Senior Secondary School at Kurud and No.4, and 400 students are studying i.e. the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad in agreement with the petitioner for letting running the school for a period jagain the agreementwas executed whereby |to the petitjoner. The petitioner has prayed on the ground that the same being illegal |icorporated in the agreement dated 25-7- behalf of respondent No.2 in which it has in question is required for construction and i, therefore, in terms of the agreement ,el ferthe parties r^- XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T f^;H^3TI^T $b^icb^rf?cT is^ 3^ r^l'4l(rl<M, ^Tft'H'ie, fctdl^f^ 3ll^l M51®h WT^rrgw^' ^ 7 ^T^ 2004- f^re^' 3TT^T^<fr^K^f?cf Learned counsel for the conditions of the agreement, r^s month's notice asking the petiti^ner impugned notices were given or He further argued that respondejit in question only when the sam^ petitioner is entitled for five years) on rent to the petitioner for five| Rs.1,270/-. On the other hand, leame|d is true that the notice was giverf elapsed, therefore, they are entifed premises jn question is require<|l Court is to be opened in Janpa^ argued that even vide represent^tion 13-9-2004, it has been submitte<| it requires repairs, therefore, tl| circumstences,the petitioner sho|utd Having heard leamed c<> relevant documents. In this connection, in premises in question were giv^n No.2 for five years it has been| question has been given for fiv|s with effect from 25-7-2002. Ho|wever entitled to get the premises vs|cated petitiftnftr anri thaf tnn r»nthft grikiinri cbi^f^i^ri ^i^<nT^:teI<ft<Ri«i< ^^rf^TTW^T p^titioner submitted that as per the terms and r^sponctent No.2 ought to have given one to vacate the premises, whereas, the (ly for 15 days and three days respectively. No.2 can ask for vacation of the premises is required for construction, otherwise, the I as the premises in question has been gh/en lyears from 25-7-2002 on a monthly rent of counsel for respondent No.2 argued that jt for 15 days, but since nowone mbnth has for vaeation. He further argued that the for construction of Court room as the civil Panchayat Bhavan. Leamed counsel also Annexure P-7 given by ttie petitioner on that the building in question is not safe and ley are searching for thebuilding, in the have vacated the premises. >unse! for the parties, 1 have perused the fhe relevant agreement under which the on lease to the petitioner by respondent specifically mentioned that the premises in years at the rate of Rs.1,270/- per month o|wever, the respondent Janpad Panchayat is after giving one-month notice to the th^t th^ bitilding in q1i^tinn i^ r^quired _.^ri^^e^^ XI-HC-22 3^T "41*11^1<1, y>Tfi<l<|(o, fs<c-1iy^< 3l 1^1 M5|<^ ^TOcTr^^T^""""""""""7'^ 200 ^. ^n^T^T f^rr^^n^T ^^icb^rfN' ^~ii ^p^?-^ Soma w ^ / fy 3TT^T ^^TTW^Tf??T -•^ comp|lex Has for construction of the complex. 13-9-2004 reveals that they do| agreement, because, the notices| respectively, and not for one nothing is mentioned in the no^ required for construction of going to be opened. However, it an after thought as the purpos^ petitioner for vacating the premis^ the notices itself. Therefore, the are iiabte to be quashed on these As far as the argument of| the petitioner himself wants to requires repairs and without whic|h school is concemed, it is for the him through letter Annexure P-7 b< Therefore, the petition is Annexure P-5 and 13-9-2004 costs. In view of this order, I.A.h| I.A.No.8002/2004 stand disposed Parties are entitled for certiflie Elare ^i^?ci41^ ^i^^T^te^if^^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T perusal of notices dated 4-9-2004 and not satisfy with the requirement of the |were given for 15 days and three days, rrjonth as per tt>e agreement. Moreover, t|ces that the premises in question were in order to house the Court, whieh is been mentioned in the return, but this is for which respondent No.2 asked the ^s in question has not been mentioned in Inotices in qufestion are bad and the same irounds. learned counsel for respondent No.2 that |Facate the building on the ground that it it is difficutt for the petitioner to run the p^titioner to consider the grievance raised by ^fore respondent No.2. lallowed and the notices dated 4-9-2004 Arjnexure P-6 are quashed. No order as to o.7163/2004, M.(W.)P.No.4313/2004, and ed copy ofthis order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (cft^^fe^')