^^^--: ....^ss^-"' s ,^^y- ^°^::.'.. t^-""" SltiGLE 8EMCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CC) No. £?3^ /2011 PETITIONER : (^uldeep Arora,S/o Melaram Arora,Age about 58years, R/o Chandantal Road, Kharsia, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Municipal Conudl Kharsia, Through- Its Commissioner, Kharsia, Distt- Raigarh 2. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 3. ^"The Collector Raigarh,Distt,-Raigarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227'OF THE CONSTITUIQN OF INDIA RESPONDENTS PETITiONERS RESPONDENTS HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETiTION (C) N0. 6537 OF 2011 Kuldeep Arora Versus Municipal Council Kharsia & Others (Writ Petition underArtide 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. I/! [ Present:- Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sudeep Agrawai, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State/ respondents No.2 & 3. ORDER (Passed on this 08th day of November, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the notice dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the petitioner has been asked to submit his response on or before 24.10.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his response on 22.10.2011 and without waiting for-t+ie finai order to be passed by the authorities, the petitloner has approached this Court on 03.11.201 1. 2. Shri Agrawai, iearned oounsei appearing for the respondent No.1/iV1unicipai Councii submits that no declsion has yet been taken and there is no contemplation or Intention to pass any order to demoiish the disputed structure without passing tne proper order. The repiy of the petitioner is stili in conslderation and the petitloner approached this Court without waiting for the proper order, which amounts to misuse of judjdal process. However, Shri Agrawai, submits that the Municipa! Councii v/sil not take any action before considering the repiy ofthe petitioner and passing proper order. 3. i have examined the facts and submlssion. !n courBe of the argument, Shri Sharma, iearned counsei for the petitioner submits that the iVtunicipaI Councii, Kharsia has informed through beat of drum that demolition vvill take piace today. However, according to hlm, the same was done oniy on 07.11.2011, when the petitioner fijed this petition on 03.11.2011. Mr. Agrawal strongiy denied the same. After having examined all the aspects of the matter, it appears to be a case where the petitioner has approached this Court without waiting for the proper cause of action to interfere in the adminlstrative functioning, which appears to have been done, in accordance with law. 4. Thus, in order to discourage this type of practice i.e. misuse of judiciai process, the petition is dismissed with a cost quantified to be a sum of Rs. 2.500/-. Sd/- i SatishK.AgnihoW 1 - Judge SshOk