-X "r :e^-,i. .::1'. ,. :- . ::.:;...../:: .^ •. .:...;-..- IN THE; HIGH CQURT OFjJUDIGA'EUREATBII.ASPUR WMT PETITIOW N0?-8tg OF ZOQiS SfiTfflM^ Vishal Chopra, son of Late-S.N. ehopra, aged 37 years, residej|nt 6f 283, Priyadarshirii Colpny Road, Raipur. vs ft®8N)NI)BNTS State of Chhattisgarh, th-rough the Secretary, Ministory of Law and Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, D.K.S. ^j^y^cz^izc«^.. ^ ^^\y ^^•ff •^". ^- '^le Raipur Municipal Corporation, a S'-'^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^odycorporateconstitutedundertl'ie ^ o o^^ relevant provisions of C.G. Municipal Corporaition Act, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corpotla.tion, Malviya Road, Raipur. WRITrETITliON UNDERARTICL1& 226A 227 OF TH1B CONSTI'IFUTIONOFINIMLA, -sai giSuaaaia. ^KVVfStG&e^SISKS-y.flK^^^t^'^"- Bvu-wjlll^LM^^ LBS^' ^ -^ HIGH COURT OF GHHATnSOARH AT BItASPUR Writ titu)nNo.2818 of 2005 Vishal caiopra -Versus- State ofClihatt^arti& anofher _ DB: Hon'bleShriJusticeS. R. Nayak, C.J. ;' & Hoa'bteShriJUsticeSatisfa K. Agnihotri, J. Mr. P. Diwakar, Seiuor AdvocatewifhL Mr. MaSiay Kuinar Bhaduri.Advocate for the petitioner. , Mr. V. V. S. Moorly, DeputyAdvoeate Generalfi>rfhe RespondeatNo.l, Mr. H. B. Agraewal, Semor Advocate wifh Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate &r fhe RespondentNo.2. ORALORDER ( 21*tNflSffiinber200S) 1. In thJs writ petition filed uader Artkdes 226 aad 227 of the Gonstitution ofhidia aiDon^ (riiijCT fhe petitknier has spuj^it fiM-writ OfmandanuMtodtxd^thesect^ 401 ofthe Chhattisgarti Miuudpal Corpotatton Act, 1956 (for sllort fhe Act) as uiiconstitutioiial being ultra wiires flic Constitution af India. At tte tuae of hcaring Mr. Diwakar, kained cpuasel for fhe petitioaer on iastruction fioaa his cUent submitted fhat he WQirid not press for fhe relicf of writ of naandam.us to declare sectiDn 401 of fhc Act as Jf • ' • • • ' . • ' ' uaconstitutk»iial. 2. In fhe writ pctition, the petitioncrhas assailed fbe legaUtyand vdidity of the notices issued by fhc Raipur Mimicqial Corporataai/Sccond respondents iherein, dated 31,5.20(®(Amcxure P/4) aad dated 21.6.2005 (ftimexurc P/^ and sought fi?r quashing <rf fliiEisian»e by writ ofccrtkaarL In additioa, the petitionea'lias ateo spui^fctjfer a'writ e' -.--'. )- 3. ,''r> ia fhe nature of writ of ptobibition Besteainmg fhe respondents aufliorities, iheir ^ents, servants and emplByeca fioin interfisru^/iatEriaeddlmg with fhe posseasion of the petitiwtnr or dcaiolishutg ttie construction Taised by ttie petitioner, which »fhe subjcct matter of fhe dlspute. ABnexure P/4 fhe notice is issued. by the second tespondent Municipal Oorporatfon uader section 293 (^ (iQ and Seetk»n302offhcActwhereasAnnexureP/6 thexwticc jsissued uiider sectfon 307(3) offhe Act. Haviag perused fhe pkadit^s of fhe parties, we fi>und fhat fhe dispute brotight before fhe Court m tfac present writ petttfon brtettes wifh disputed qucstiouoffacts. In order fc> resolve fte Usbctween fhe parties, it becoincs mqicrative for an adjudieatiag fonua to pemut fhc parties to lead evidence and tender witacsses for crosa eiBammatian by theother side. As pointed out aad reiterated by Ifae Coiisdtutioxial coiirts fhat fhe High Courts dM>uM. not oxdinarity iBidcrtake-the resohitiDn of fhe disputed questfons of fact in asummary proceeding under Article 226 of fhe Constitutton of India. TTafi ap^»ropriatefiirum to decide such disputed questions of feict isa jurisdictfonal cnril Court. By virtue of fhe iaterim order passed by fhis Oaurt fhe detuoUtion ofthe subjeet properly bas becn staycd tiU date. Siace fhc petitioner has an efifective and comptehensive remedy uader scction 401 of fhc Act, We thiak it appaopriate to direct him. to asafl of fhc remedies undersection401 offheActbyw^ofasaitprcwidedimder Section 401 of fhe Act We, .however, (hink fhat it is just and appTOpriate to maintain fhc status quo wfaich obtains as ott todEy fcr a reasonable ifurther peiiod so as to fiacilitnte tiie pcdtinnier to -work out fhe legal remcdies beforc fhe jurisdictioaal ci»ilCourt. 1 1 ' In fhe icsuB, aad fw the &regomg reasons, we dismiss 1I»e writ pefition withl ito order as to costs, faowever, with Uberty to (tie petitioncr to worhout his legal remedies under aeetfon 401 of the Act, ifhe is so advised. We furfher direct that fhe status quo which obtains as 6n today wifh. regard to fhe subject pioperty shaB. be maintamed for a furflier period oftwo moafhs fiom toftoy. If such a suit is instituted, we trust the jurisdictional cinl court wfll expedite fhe tnal aad dtepose offhecasc as carty as pos^ble. •^ ,-"^^' Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- • Satish K. Agnihotn —Judge Thakur