HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 3326 of 2009 FETI’HONER : Smt. Preeti Masih, Aged about 89 years, w/o Shri T.C.Masih, R/o Hausa No. 12, Panchsheel Nagar, Civil Lincs Ward, Rajpur, Tehsil & Disirict Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : l. Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Through Its Commisséener, Maiviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ’I‘he Liquidator, Raipur Zila Gn'h Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit (Registration N0. ()7) Raipur (C.G.) ¥anchsheel Nagar, Raipur Dimict Raipur (06.) 3. The Superinterzéent of Poiico, District Raipur (CG) 4. Smt. Sadhna Ahuja, H.No. 13, Panchsheel Nagar,’ Civil Lines Ward, Raipur, Teiisii & District Rainur (C.G.) VERSUS i Abhimanu §ingh S/o Shri Sarendra Singh, The Director of “Mr. Bean’s” Coffce Lounge, 13, Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE QQN S'I'ImHONvQEQSLXA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Aonihotri. J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwanj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arum Sao, Government Advocate for the State/responden‘i No.3 ORDER ORAL (Passwd on 13 day of July, 2009) Heard. By this peti‘rion. the petitioner seeks a writ m the mime of mandamus directing the respondent No 1-Municipai Corporation, to take steps against the respondent No. 4 and 5 restraining them from using the premises Le. House No. 13. situated at Panchsheel Nagar, Civil Lines Ward, Raipur, for commerciai purpose Le. for running a coffee shop in the name and style of"Mr. Beans Coifee Lounge”. The facts? in nutsheli, are that the petitioner is a member of respondent No. 2 society. The petitioner is the owner of House No. 12 adjacent to the house of respondent No. 4, who has rented out her house for running a coEee shop in the name and styie of “Mr. Beans Coffee Lounge”. The petitioner, being aggieved, made a eomplajnt to the management ofthe society. The respondent No. 2, i.e. the Liquidator of the society made further complaint to the respondent. N0. 1 on 21022009 (Annexure P/8). The petitioner has also made a complaint to the respondent No. 1 on 23.02.2009 (Annexure P/7) to restrain the respondent No. 5 non). using House No. 13, owned by the respondent No“ 4 for commercial activities. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Supreme Court, in S.N.Chandrashekhar & another v. State of Kamataka & Others’, has held as under: “23. We have noticed bereinbefore that so far as running of a hotel in a residential zone is concemed, having regard to the Zoning Reguiations, the same is not pennissible.” In View of that, the respondent No. 1 may be directed to take steps against. the respondent No. 4 and 5 for removing the coffee shop which is a commercial activity running in the residential area. 4. In fact. it is the responsibility of the management to look after the interest of the residents of the society by ensuring noise-tree, pollution-free and peaceful living ofthe members of the society by not permitting any commercial activity within the society. If the management fails to take appropriate remedial measures, a member of the society may make a complaint to the Registrar. In the present case, it appears that a liquidator has been appointed by the Registrar. The official liquidator ought to have taken necessary steps for maintaining the society in’proper manner inoiuding not permitting any such J .. .. ...... ... ... ........ ..... ... ......... . 1 2006 Ara sow 800 t activity which is commercial i1: nature. The petitioner, it appears, has approached the management and the management has also sent a notice to the respondent No. 4 who is the owner of the house No. 13 wherein the coffee shop is running. Further, vide memos dated 29.01.2009, 11132009 and 24.12.2009 (Annexure P/4 col]y.), the respondent No. t has also issued proper notices to the respondent No. 4 to remove the construction which is used for commercial purpose. In view of foregoing, it appears that the authorities are taking appropriate steps to remove the commercial activity from the residential area. Thus, at this stage, the petition is not maintainable as the authorities have already taken steps as is evident from Annexure {3/4 collectively. 6. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is an old lady of 89 years who needs peaceful living, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the representation dated 23.02.2009 (Annexure P/7) filed by the petitioner and the letter dated 27.02.2009 (Annexure P/8) sent by the respondent No. 2, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as early as possible, preferably within a period ofthree weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, the respondents have any grievance by this order, the respondents are at liberty to approach this Court for modification/review ofthis order. l ' Sd/- i 1 Satish K. Agnihotri l. ' Judge t i 1. a