c BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT QF_ CHHATTLSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION [C] N0.7iz9^^ OF 2009 PETITIONER y Santosh Kumar Mittal S/o Late Shri Nand Kishor Agrawal, Aged about 40 years, R/o Jutemil Road, Goga Mandir Chowk, Raiga8h, • Tahsil 85 District- Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT ^\\^ ^R.Wo.....—^ pteseRW*^S'""- teted.-—-5"'i"^"\ ^J-- ..-^" ^l] Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through- Corrtoiissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Tahsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.). . 2] Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Through- Estate Officer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8s, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ^-3] The Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raigarh, Tahsil 8s District- Raigarh (G.G.). W1?ITPET!TION_UNDER^RnCLE_226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR OR0ERS, DIRECTLON OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. 1. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER(S) ,L HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSSARH : «LASPUR Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manlndra Mohan Shrwastava, J. PETITIONER RESPQNBENTS WRIT PETtTION (0 N0.7064/2008 Santosh Kumar Mittal Versus Munidpai Gorporation, Raigarhand others Present: - Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitiQner. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, counsel for respondent No-1. ShriSanjay Patel, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 13Bl.lanuary, 2011) With the consent of the parties, though the roatter was listed for admission, it has been finally heard. 2. This petition has been filedbythe petitioner aggrieved bythe action of respondent No.l/Corporation by which the Corporation on 9/1/07 has demolished the betel shop which the petitioner, claims to be altotted to him by e Housing Board i.e. respondent No.2 and 3. :il Ba t1 3. The case of the petitioneris Uiat the respondent No.2 had invited offers for allotment of shops/kiosks, developed and constructed by respondent No.2, in response to which, the peUtioner applied and after various formaliti^ and agreement.a sato deed was executed between the petitioner and the Houslng Board by which kiosk No.2 was atlotted in favour of the petttioner. The case of the petitioner is that though the kiosk was allotted to him and hewasoecupying and running the betel shop, atl pfa sudden, it was demolished by the CorporaUon without any opportun'rty of hearing. The petitioner had moved to DistriGt Consumer Forum for redressat of his grievance but his comptaint was disinissed 1 • i: X. %^/ ''"i&.^E.*^ oh 1/11/08, againstwhich an appeal was preferred before theState Commission, the matter was remanded back to fte District Forum. The petitionerttiereafter did not pursue the remedy before Uie District Forum and the case was finally dismissed for want of prosecution on 20/10/09. 4. Learned counsel for ttie peUfioner submltted that from the affidavit flled by respondent No.1,it is clear that upon ctemolition of kiosks, two persons have been atlottedaltemativekiosks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the respondent No.lffiorporation sought to rehabilitete those whose kiosks were demolished, the case of the petitioner was liable te be considered and he is enb'Ued for allotmentof one kiosk as an altemative arrangement. 5. Learned counsel for respondentNo.1 referrir^ to ttie affidavit of B.R.Sahu, Incharge, Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh flled on 25/10/10, submits that bwo betel shops were demoiished and vide its resolution dated 26/04/07, the Corporation decided to rehabilitate the two displaced betel shops and thereforeatlotted two kiosks, i.e. kioskNo.1 to Sarrtosh Thawait and kiosk No-2 to Bhota Singh. tt has been stated that the petitioner never raised any objection to respondent No.1 as to how ttie kiosk no.2 has been altotted to Bhoia Singh and submitted thatthe petitioner was never in possession of kiosk no.2. 6. From the documents which have been piaced on record by ttie pettioner, it is clear that the Housing Board had allptted kiosk No.2 to the petitioner. However, it appears that the dispute is whether the kiosk of the peWoner was demolished or not. While the petitioner asserts that his kiosk was demolished and therefore, he was entitled to altotment of an atterriative kiosk by the Corporation, according to the Corporation, Uie petitionerwas not in possession »1 and the petitioner never submitted any objection with r^ard to attotment of kiosk to other pereons. In these circumstances, whether the shop allotted to the peCtioner was demolished or not, itself is a matter of enquiry. As the petitioner has not approached the Corporation, in the circumstances of the case, itwoutd be proper to direct ttie petitioner to approach tfte Corporation through its Commissioner raising his daim by submltting ali the documents to substantiate his claim that his kiosk was demolished. On such representation being submitted by the petitioner, the Commissioner of the Corporatlon or such other person as may be deputed by the Corporation, not betowthe rank of Assistant Engineer, shall malce proper enquiry. If it is found that theshop of the petltioner was demolished in the drive, the peUtioner would be entiU&d to an altemative allotment of kiosk at a suitable area in the same vicinity by the Corporation. 7. Considering the nature of dispute, the Commissioner or e appropriate authority shall afso require productfon of necessary documents relating to allotment and possessionof kiosk in favour ofthe petitioner andother aliottees from the possesslonof respondent No.2 and 3. Respondents No.2 and 3 shall fulty co-operate wlth the enquiry. The necessary enquiry shall be completsd as earty as possible, not l?ter than four months from the date of receipt of copyof this order. Dtft^ii 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the peUtion is finally disposed off. -—-?= r Sd/- iN jManindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge s ^; s:'"- \B