HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon' ble Shri Dhirendra IVIishra, & Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ ApDellant Petitioner WritAppeal No. 279 of 2010 Reliance Infratel Limited (A subsidiary of Reliance Communications Ltd.), a company incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Block-H, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Kopar Khairane, Navi Bombay inter alia circte office at Ashoka Millennium, Ring Road No.1, Raipur(CG). i§ s Respondents Vs. 1) State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Urban Administration & Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2) Director, Directorate of Urban Administration & Development, Department of Urban Administration & Development, R.D.A. Building, G.E. Road, Near Shastri Chowk, Raipur (CG). 3) Municipal Corporation of Raipur, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Raipur, Raipur (CG). 4) Municipal Corporation of Bilaspur through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Bilaspur, Bilaspur (CG). 5) Municipal Corporation of Korba, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Korba, Korba (CG). 6) Municipal Corporation of Ambikapur, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Ambikapur, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). 7) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., through the Chairman/Principal Officer, CSPDCL, Dangania, Raipur (CG). :'s- ?'^^^s^;^'<B'!Sifi^^'?^s.fts><?§;*!^"'S!ii!a:i^S';£^?'-'!'"^i;%'SE ;1 8) Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi (India). — (Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006) Present: Dr Shri N.K. Shukla, Sr. counsel with Shri Gautam Bhaduri, counselfor the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2/State. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. counsel with Ms. Pragya Singh, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Kasif Shakeel, counsel for respondent No.8. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 16-12-2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. The instant writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28-6-2010 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1485 of 2010, whereby the instant writ petition has been disposed ofwith the following observation. "Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the petitioner may deposit the required fee and the concerned respondent-Corporation may take decision after deposit of fee and compliance of other terms and conditions, except compounding fee. The question of deposit of compounding fee shall be subject tQ final decision in W.P.(C) No. 800 and W.P.(C) No. 1243 of 2010." 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in disposing of the writ petition with the aforesaid observations and the appellant had also a right of hearing before his petition could be disposed offinally. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they have no objection if this writ appeal is allowed and the appellant is also afforded an opportunity of analogous hearing with the connected writ petitions. °••;• ."1;.?8? ..' -••t <! ^ ^ "'•-aS^' 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. By the impugned order, the writ petition has been disposed of with an observation that "The question of deposit of compounding fee shall be subjecttofinaldecisioninW.P.(C)No. 800/2010 and W.P.(C) No. 1243 of2010. 6. Having heard learned counsel for fhe parties and having perused the impugned order, we are of fhe considered opinion that the appellant had also a righf to address the Court on his petition and his petition could not have been disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and it is held that the appellant is also entitled for an opportunity of hearing along with other connected Writ Petition (C) No. 800 /2010 & W.P.(C) No. 1243 of 2010 before his petition is finally disposed of. 8. Interim order dated 28-6-2010 passed in Writ petition (C) No.1485 of 2010 shall be in force. — - Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge -i Raju