annn,naar ”w Mmww m ” WRIT PETEION Ngfq7 OF 1999 andit Chhitani Prasad Mitani Prasad Dubey, Post Graduate College. Through its President Shri Bhagwat Prasad Dubey, (Link Road Biga‘spur(Mp) Petitioner: VS Eéspondents z Mayor, Municipal. Corporat ion Bilaspur § Municipal Corporat ion Bilasp ur, Through its Commissioner. N §Iamxir i x Town and Couqtry Pianning ‘ Bilaspur, Through its Joint Director. \ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONST TUEIOIVOF ’“ INDIA § 1 £.2. 33’ vwmum/ h, . .. P . 1 XI—HC— 22 Wm Wusm m‘manw / a; mm X Shri Pmshanf Mishm, counsel for fhe pefi‘l’ioner. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Addifional Das,’Panel Lawyer for responder” 0.3. None appears on behalf of r sponden‘l’s 1 & 2. No represen‘ra‘rion . ’§ ‘ ‘ is made. The perusal of pravivus 0rd r shzz'fs ravaab ‘Hm‘r on 28.11.2001, ‘H‘Ie Cour-1' has direc’fed fa issue 5 1'0 respondenf No.2 for appearance on 04.12.2001 and in Compliance of fhe Cour'r'order, The, SPC was issued. On 10.12.2001..i1' was men'i'ioned Tha‘i’ The name of Mr, P.K. ,Mishm, Advoca‘re be shown for responde 1‘ No.2 dnci his name appears in The cause Jisi. Even fhen, no body appe rs on behalf of respondents 1 & 2. Advoca're Genera! wifh Shri Pmveen Heard ‘Hne [earned counsel fo v fhe par-fies. By This wri‘l' pefi‘rion under A Ticle 226/227 of The Consfi‘ru‘iion of India, ‘l'he p‘efifioner has challen_ed ihe ac'iion of respondenf No.2 demolishing The building of fhe peii‘iioner and also for refusal farenew The earlier sanciion plan for consTrL cTion of The proposed buildings The peTiTioner-‘s case is ThaT PandiT C.MD. College was esTablished on 315* July, 1956‘and’ iT is running graduaTe and posT—graduaTe courses. The Teaching‘sTaff of The college consisTs of 78 Teachers besides 40 oTher employees making a ToTal of 118. In order To consTrucT four walls for The college, The SocieTy moved an applicaTion TogeTher wiTh' map ’//. i y 1 ‘ \ \ ‘ The proposed consTrucTion was lready approved by The Municipal // //// ‘37 . XI-ECQZ W W, m,W W (”wefm/qqwt 299- ma g$§g _ \ 7 WM$W ‘ ‘K z, W$j§§TWW showing +he proposed construcfion f0 +lne Municipal Corpora‘l‘ion, Biiaspur‘ ‘rine for H's approvai and sanction an 10.33.97 and necessary requisii’e fee for fhe sumeliumoun’ring 1‘0 Rs.10 qOO/— was also deposifed oh 17.03.97. Hm’ia‘i‘eiy, 'Hne Municipal Corpor' ‘hon Bxlaspur sanc‘honed ihe map showmg The proposed consfrucfion on 05 05 97 However; This aanc‘non f i was valid for one year Le. up To Q4 05.98. In ‘H'Ie proposed consfrucfion, ‘18 shops were also propooed and a cyeie si’cxnd in The ground floor. The To be consTr cTed over The gniiery wi'rh‘ o viewr To shops Qwere’ proposed raise funds To cover up The enTire onsTrucTion expenses. According-To The peTiTioner, The said map was so c‘honed WiThouT any modificaTIon and accordingiy, The peTiTioner raised e consTruchon up To The pimTh area and furTher coiumns were raised Thereupon This consTrucTion was ‘ raised beTween 05 O5 97 To O4 O5 8 As a whole The consTrucTion was Y ;T To period be carried of one year ouT 1n Accordingly a large scale Th x: peTITioner ich could noT moved be compleTed‘WIThm for renewal of The a ~ ; l sancTion and The applicaTion for newal of SancTion TogeTher WiTh a l furTher deposw of Rs.10,500/'— submiTTed on 30fh OcToBer, 1998; i I j Mumcupal Corporanon Bilaspur di cTed The peTmoner To make Similar aoplicaTionxbefore The JomT DirecT r Town & CounTry Plannlng, Bilaspur and accordingly The peTiTioner su miTTed an applicaTion on 0? 11 98 To The JoinT DirecTor‘. The JoinT Di ecTor replied To The peTiTIoner ThaT XI—HC~22 mm mm ?7?9/?§i W mg . WW£iwW ~ 3., %3¥F?WW§'QT mam A\ mmmw‘aa s or ora io , , es, fine Municipal Cor-pom'rion was fuly competen‘r +0 sqn’cfion fhe proposed cansfruc‘rion‘ The Commissioner, Municipal Corporafion, Bilnspur, wro'fe a leTTer da‘red 10.11.98 soIiciT g The approval and sancTion for The proposed consfr‘ucTion. Resp ndem' No.3 gave opinion ,‘rhm' since fhe i consfrucfion was proposed f re commerciai use, no sancfion couid be accorded as under fhe Biluspu Developmen‘r Project fhe land used‘was proposed for educa'l'ionol pur oses. The pefii’ioner had nof raised any i consTrucTion offer 04.05.98. Furfher respondenf No.2 issued no'rice on 01.01.99 under Sec'rion 307 ( E of fhe Municipai Corporation Ac‘r, 1956, f'nai' The consfruc‘l'ion was ma e wi‘i'houT any permission and fherefor'e, > the pefifioner should show ca se by 02.01.99 as fo why This should nof be demolished. The process rver wifhou'l' serving fhe no‘rice +0 any o1: ; fhe officers ofr‘rhe College, hadwrongly menfioned ‘rhaT service was refused However, reply was iven on 02.01.99. ‘The Corpora‘rian slarfed demolishing fhe building on 1 ‘01.99. Thereafter, fhe pe‘l'i‘l'ioner raised objec‘rion and on verbal orde of The Mayor, demoli'rion operafion was disconfinuedl The Municipal orporafion, Bilaspur, wrofe a le‘H‘er dafed 25.01.99 (Annexure P-lO) infi airing fhaf The consfrucfion is To be made keeping inlkview The proposed 35 mefers wid‘l’h of The road, whereas, number of consfrucfions have been :carried ouf and are being carried ou'r by various persons of The so e localify on The basis of 25, mefers wid'rh ml, \ ‘ xl-Hc—22 ‘ l l away W ’ Iegal jus‘rifica'fion. Corpora‘l'ion be direc‘red fo gt as per the map subrhiffd. The learned counsel fo r 1-he pe'ri‘rioner submi‘H'ecl +ha+ as per fhe V revised mcsl'er plan daTed 26. road has been proposed 'h ‘- Ther‘e’fore, ‘rhe Municipcd C proposal of The pefi‘l'ioner in learned counsel appearing on l if fhe applicaTion of The pe proposed revised ir‘nasfer' plan. Having heard fhe learni 'rhe facts and circumstance. submission made by The leorr per The revised proposed plar proposed as 24 meTers insTead of V35 meTers, respondenT No.2 is direcTed To consider The rendwal applicaTion of The peTiTioner‘daTed 30f” amber, 199s. ,If n is proqosed that The widm of The road win be 24 af The ragd. The pe‘fi'rioner 1 Corpora‘l‘ion fhq'r houses and Tad broughT To The noTice of The Municipal shops were being cons‘rrucfed in’fhe link :" read in 1'he sgme line inciuding fhe $hopping compiex 01’: Kedia Bm‘r’ners and Thm' The demoii‘rion was n‘ UHima‘l‘e ade purposely and deliberafely wh‘houf any y, if has been prayed Thai-"lhe Municipal 'an'r sanction of ‘i'he proposed consi'ruci’ion 08.2000 (Annexure P49), new The werh of 7 i be 24 me‘l'ers insl'eacl of 35 me‘l‘ers. orpora'l'ion be direc‘l'ed To consider ‘fhe The “9m 01c fl'le revised masTer plon.‘ The )ehalf of responden‘l' No.3 has no objec‘l‘ion, '7 fifioner is considered in The light of The ad counsel for fhe pariies, having regard i’o s of the case and having regard To The led counsel for The peTiTioner ThaT now, as I (Annexure P—19), The widTh of The road is i/ : XI-HC~22 l 1 of 'fhe pafh‘ioner in Tha light of 1'he changed circumsfqnces and pass appropriafe order on 'Hae requesf 01" The pe‘fifianer‘, wi+hin a period 0f drhree mon'rhs from Today. Wi‘fh fhe above observations, +he pe'ri‘l'ion s'fands disposgd of. Parfies are enfi'Hed for ce Soma t J