^ HIGH COURT OF CHHA'n'ISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioiier Writ Petidoa (0 No. 2937 of 2009 Dashrafh Verma, S/o Late Dukhuiaai Verma, agcd 41 years, resident of Raipur (Dangaaiya near Ashuprad Itospita^ Pd. Dindayal Upadhyay Ward, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The State of QIihattisgarh, through the Secretaxy, Department of Urban Administration aad Local Self D.K.S. Bbawan, Raipiir; Distt. Ralpur(C.G.) The Muiiicipal Corporation Raipin;, tteough its Coinnussioner, Municipal Corpoaatioa, Raipur(e.<3.) The Upayukt, Municipal Cprporation, Raipur, Bistt. Raipur (Ghhattasgatli) The Revenue Authori^, Miuikapal Corporatioa^ Raipur, IMstt. Ite^nrr ((3.0.) The Authority Zoae Karyalaya Zone 5 (five) iMiuneipal ; <3orporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (eiihattisgart^ Tbie GQllector, Raipur, Distt. R^ur (C.Ot.) Miikesh Sharma, S/o Shri Satyanarayaa Shanaaj aged 43 years, tesideiit of BraIuaaD.pat'a ia flront of bnfMJTlg Dr. Hhagwaat^Raqmr, Djstfe Ra4^(©.<^^ Dr. NaUni MadIiaFQ^, e^sd about 48 yeara, Director of Ashuvad Hospital at Raipur, Distt. Raipur (G.G.) E)r. S. ,N, Madhariya, ;aged aboiit 51 yeara, Asfairvad Hospital, Raipur, Distt. Raqiur i(Clihattisgari^ The PEesident, Muirictpal CorppFation, Raipur, Distt.) Raqn.u- (Chhattisgatti) WRn'PETrFONUNDERARTICLE22&©FTHEGONSTrTUnONOFINDIA (SB: Honlale Shri Satish K. ^mhotriJ.) StiriS. K. Dadsena, Advocate fbr tlie petiti(M r. ShnAruitSab, Skwt.Ad.wacate^;^ Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advoeate with Ms Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respoBdeiits No. 2, 3, 4, 5mid IQ. ShnM. K. Bbadun, Advocate for tlae respondeiit No. 7. ShriR. K. Keshenvani,Advoeate^therespQadeirts N6. 8;fla^ Thakur ORDBRtoraII (Passed on this 9«hday ofJuly, 2009) Heard. , 1. By fhis petition, the petitioner claims a relief that fhe respondents/authori.ti.es may be directed aot to deiaotoh the residential house of the petitioKer, without foUowiDg the provisions oflaw and principles ofiiaturaljustice. 2. Shri H. B. Agarwal, leamed Senior counsel with Ms Meera Jaiswal, leamed couiisel appeariDg for fhe respoiuients/Corporation submits that at present, there is no proposal to demoUsh fhe house of fhe petltioncr. The representation inade by the pctitioner aloiig witU ofher petsoaa is pendiag considerationaad no steps woiild be taken before decision on fhe said representation. Dccision, ifany, wiU be taken on fhe repreK;ntation after aflFoixiing properopportuirity ofhearing. 3. la view of the clear and categorical statement made by leanad counsel for the respondents/Corpbration, relying oathe retura dated 8.7.2009, filed on their bchalf, the petition has no inerit, as fhe petitioiier has pleaded the facts which are iiot in existence at aIL 4. In view of fhe foregoing, thepctitionisdisinlssed.Interua order dated 24.6.2009 is vacated. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge