§IP;in^^" ^^^.^ii. ^i^^i- /• ^\ C'P z^ 2^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. ^~^e^~ Of2006 H PETITIONERS *' ^. ..••5^''' ^•^y^ ^.?-^y^/ ^y^f A--^oy CY/.'^V .^''( ^ f. 1. DILIP Singh Saluja S/o Late Ajit Singh, aged about 54 years. /'2. Harbhajan Singh Saluja S/o Late >' Ajit Singh Saluja, aged about 50 years. Both resident of Station Road Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : /1. The State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Local-self Govemment '. vm-COPY D.K.S.Building, Raipur (CG). -' ^'J"', CI.EKK iJ%."G".B1LA^/"" (°• ^ 2. Municipal Coimcil ,Kharsiya, ^ [0 •' through its Chief Municipal OfEicer Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG). / 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG). /4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Departinent, Raigarh Division , Raigarh (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ A~F^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) 5685 of 2006 PETITIONERS : Dilip Singh Saluja & Another VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AcinihotrJ, J, Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 30th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 03/10/2006 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Chief Municipal Officer, Kharsiya, whereby permission granted to the petitioner for construction of building on Khasra No. 676/4 area 0.085 (787.5 sq.ft.) has been cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing on the ground that there was breach of clause 2 of the terms of the permission dated 23/12/2005 (Annexure P/3). 2. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have obtained prior permission to construct building on the above-stated land on 23/12/2005 (Annexure P/3), There was no breach of any terms and conditions, as specified in the permission. However, on the ground of expression of unhappiness on the part of the Sub Divisional Officer, the permission to construct the building has been cancelled alleging that there had been breach of clause 2 of the terms of the permission. Shri Tripathi further submits ^y X;'. )noL])!M 6u!p|inq }o uoifonjtsuoo p sssueyo ^o Buipunodiiioo Aq '/,ue ^i ')USLU96uujUi SL|} }o uoi}euopuo3 jsqynj pue Ouuesq jo A)iunpoddo 's'i .t|9S)i [.ggi. 'py 941 P suoisiAojd sq} jepun pjen6-s^es e si sjsqi 'ssseo jisq) PJBMJO^ }nd 0} sjsuoitjisd 9L|} 0} 6uuesq p A}iunyoddo ue Guipjoye panssi SBM \.QQ\. 'pv 9411° Z81. uoi)os9 p (g) 'g (/) suoi}38S-qns p suoisiAojd oqt jspun ps}B|dLus}uoo se soiiou ou }eq} siqeindsipui si i| 0)8J3L|} pspusdde siusiunoop sqt pue s6uipe9|d sq} pesnjGd 'ssifJed sq} JOj Buuesdde issunoo psujesi pjesq SAeLj ] 'ljnoo 814} Aq sousjspsiui Aue IUBJJEM }ou ssop siues aij} snq} 'MBI q}iM souepjoooe ui passed ussq seq SLUBS 34) leij} s^iujqns jsqijnj pue sojiuoqine luepuodssj aq) Aq psssed jspjo psuBndiui 34} papoddns 'sieis sqt JO^ Suuesdde JSAMBI |sued psujeoi 'unpeiig uqg •uoissitujsdp siujsip qoesjq e SBM SJ94) ieq) uoiiosdsui ui puno^ seq Jsoiyo leuoisiMQ qng 841 se 1)OS-IJ03 }OU Sl -ISOI^O leUOISIAIQ qng ^o soue)sui sq} )e psssed ussq seq jspjo pauBnduji sq) leqt u0!}e6s||e sqi '1183)1 uoissiLujsd sq) |aoueo o) }nq '6uue94 p Aiiunijoddo ue pjoye 0} Ajessaoeu )ou si }i 'uoissiujjsd sq} 10 SLUJS} Aue p ijoeejq e SBM sjsq} 'IUSAS sq) ui )eq} siiujqns 'iiounoo ledioiun^ )uspuodssj SL)} jo^ Buueedde issunoo psujesi 'n-inQ uq9 •paiisenb aq ABLU SLUBS sq} pue Ajej}iqje y [e6a||i si jspjo psuBnduji SL|I 'snqi '(,,l.961. 'PV S4t,, IJoqs jo^) i.ggl. 'PV ssiiiiedraiuniAi LjjeBsiUBLiqo sqi p V'ZSl. Pue /81. suoipss jo uoisiAOjd 341 jspun psuuqsus se '6uuesL| 10 A}iun)JOddo ue pepjoye ussq }ou SBL| j3uoi}i}8d 941 'japjo psuBndiui sqi Buissed sjo^sq leqt 'fr 4y" fF ::•'' '^ ^1, """&> permission under the provisions of Section 187-A of tffi 1961, There is no dispute that in the' case on hand, the respondent Municipal Council had brushed aside completely and had taken a decision on the instruction of Sub Divisional Officer, as is evidentfrom the impugned order itself. 7. It is expected that the authority should not function in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. They have to follow the provisions of law when passing the order. It primarily appears that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the Sub Divisional Officer was not happy with the construction or may be with the petitioner. In response, the authorities including the Sub Divisional Offieer have not given specific explanation with regard to the reasons stated in the impugned orderdated 03/10/2006. 8. For the reasons and analysis aforestated, the impugned order dated 03/10/2006 is quashed. However, if there is any breach of permission or any other illegal activity is done by the petitioners, the respondent Municipal Council is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law not at the instance of senior officer, de hors provisions of law. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with costs quantified to be Rs.5,000/- payable by the respondent No.2 to the petitioners. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge