3 A^^--\. ^ss^ .-^^" ^ <.«-•' IN THEH!GHCOURTOP CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.tClNo. ^M^ /2010 Sii .i's'i.r'u PBTITIONER 1; Vimal Dutt, S/o Sunil Chandra Dutt, aged about 52 years, R/o near Labour Union Officer, Raigarh Jute MiU, Raigarh,Distorict Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS l)' Muiiicipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through its Conimissioner Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ^ 2) CoUector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 's^y (c"u-) WE®S^ WRIT irermON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA FOR JSSUANCE ^)F APPROPKIATE WRIT/WRITS. ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION /DIRECTIONS ETC. 'i"!SS^^SSi5?SfSS:'/SySSs^;:rSi;'Si>SS ^S^^gS^'s'^Sg^^K?'" R?v HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPO^ WRIT PETITION CC) No.447of2910 Vinial Dutttl. VI- WRIT PEI'mON Municipal Coi'poratioii, P^aigarh & Aaother. rNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . SB: Hori'ble Sini Satish K. Aainhotri, 'resem: Shri M.B.Gupta, Advocate fbr the petitioner, Sliri H.B.Aer'awai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pragya Siiigh, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri ShashaaA Thakur, Parsel La'nyer for the State/respoKdent No.2. o ,< (Passed cs. IT' day of Oetobsr- 2010) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 not to demolish Ihe constr.iction raised on Khasra No. 5/2 area 1650 sq.ft., situated within the municipa! limits ofRaigarh. 2. Leanied counsel appearing for the respondent NTo. 1-Corporation submits that no cause of action has arisen in tlie instant petition as no notice has been issusd by the Corporation to the petitioner. The petition has beea faled on flie 'basis of mere apprehension thaf his property may be demolished. He farther submits that if any action is proposed to be taken agamst the petitioner, the sanie shall be doce in accordance with law. 3. In view of foregoing, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing snrv'ives for adjudication. 4. Accordmgly, the vvrit petition is dismissed. Ainit Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTOI Judge