Chattisgarh High Court
Saleem Akhtar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 398 of 2022
1. Saleem Akhtar S/o Ahmad Khan Aged about 53 years R/o Juni
Hatri Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2. Nisha Shrivas W/o Ashok Shrivas Aged about 32 years R/o Ward
No.43 Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
3. Mansha Ram Dewangan S/o Santosh Dewangan Aged about 40
years R/o Ward No. 43, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
4. Hitesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Gopal Dewangan Aged about 38
years R/o Ward No. 43, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
5. Sunita Soni W/o Mukesh Soni Aged about 49 years R/o Ward No.
43, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
6. Ashish Soni S/o Rajesh Soni Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No.
43, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Urban
Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Commissioner Muncipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, District -
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
3. Collector Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 3 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate
General.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
25.07.2022
Heard Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for
respondents No. 1 & 3 and Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel,
appearing for respondent No. 2.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 28.06.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 2794 of 2022.
3. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge at paragraph 3
goes to show that during the course of the hearing, the counsel for the
petitioners as well as the counsel for the Municipal Corporation submitted
that the shopping complex in question had already been completed long
back and all the shops had already been allotted to different individuals
long ago and as such, the claim of the petitioners for the shops at Kamla
College Chowk, Rajnandgaon would not be feasible.
4. In view of above, taking note of further submission of learned
counsel for the Municipal Corporation that claim of the petitioners for
allotment of shop at a different location under the 'Mukhya Mantri
Swalamban Scheme' is under consideration, the learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition, directing the Municipal Corporation to
consider and take appropriate decision for grant of allotment of shops at
a different location in terms of the note-sheet dated 09.02.2022 within an
outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
5. In the memo of appeal, it has not been contradicted that the
submission recorded by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 3 is not
correct.
6. Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that though allotments have been made in respect of 9 shops out of 24
shops by resolution dated 02.02.2022, such allottees have not taken
possession, and therefore, the claim of the petitioners can be considered
in respect of the said 9 shops.
7. There is no averment in the writ petition, which was filed on
20.06.2022, regarding the resolution dated 02.02.2022 as submitted by
Mr. Singh and further more, such allottees have not been made parties to
the writ proceedings.
8. That apart, having regard to the submissions noted by the learned
Single Judge in paragraph 3 of the judgment, we find no good ground to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the
writ appeal is dismissed.
10. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
