;j \ ^e^ •\6V ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C1 No. 3240.0f2009 PETmONERS RE8PONDENTS Shri Sanjay Bhivgade, soa of Late Vivckaaatida Bhivgade, aged about 42 years. Shri Manoj Bhivgade, son of late Shri Vivekaaanda Bhivgade, aged about 41 yeare. Ku. Pushpanjali Bhivgade, dau^itsr of late Shri Vivekanaada Bhivgade, aged about 30 years. All resideats of Link Road, M.K. Electronics, Bilaspur, Tahsil aiid Distt. Bilaspur (Ctdiattisgarh) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through Seeretary, TT: 4. Development Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur Cliliattisgarh. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Tlirough the ConiiTiissioner, Municipal Corporatioii, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Building OfBcer, Municipal Coiporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspin' (Chhattisgarh) Joitit Dii'ectoi', Towu & Coiuitry PlaiBuag, Regional Qffice, BUaspur, District Bilaspur, Chliattisgarh. Smt. Meenakshi Banjari, resident of link Road, BiSaspur, District Chhattisgarh. WMT PETITION IJNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrbTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satlsh K. Agirihotri, J. Present: Shri Samay K. Agrawal, Advocatfe with Shri B.D.Guru, Advoeate fortlie petitioner. Shri Arun Sao. Ck>veniment Advocate forlhe Stata/respondeiit No. 1 aiid 4. Sliri A-S.KacKhwaha, Advocate forthe respondent No. 2 and 3. OR)>ER(ORAL) (Passed on 09m day of July, 2009) Heard. 1. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri B.D.Gwu, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice 22.6.2009 (Annexure P/l) is contrary to the provisions of seotion ^?^-.- ^ysasi.'"%. ^ v'' '% -^^?i1,^^.:.?. L^ ''~::^K!-:' 'SS \^€/ fS y.} and 299-A ofthe Chhattisgarh Munieipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956'). Shri Agrawal further submits that once &e work has eommeaced pursuant to any permission granted under tfae provisions oflaw, the same cannot be caacelled undar provisiom of section 299 and 299-A ofthe Act, 1956. In support ofhis contentioB, he reiies on a decision ofleamed Division Bencb oftiie Higb Owirt of Madhya Pradesh in Nagar Palika Nigam, G-walior v. Gopal Krishnc/. 2. Having regard to the facts situation ofthe case, since no final has been passed on the reply (Annexure P/19) of the petitioner, tfae petition is premature atfhis stage. 3. The petitioner h<» approached this Court impugning Ihe notice dated 22.6.2009 whereby the petftioner has been called upon to submit his response to the proposed action taken by flie respondent-Corporation. Tbe petitioner may make a detailed representation to fhe concemed authority indicatmg the legal position and otherwise, as aforestated. 4. Without expressing any opinion on merits ofthe case, the petitions is disposed of with a direction to the concemed authorities fhat ia the event, a detailed representation is made, the same may be oonsidered and decided in aecordance with law, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge