Boystobo @ Banti Nihal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1205 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                   NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         WPPIL No. 88 of 2020

1.   Boystobo @ Banti Nihal S/o Bhola Nihal Aged About 37 Years R/o
     Block No. 36, Room No. 16, B.S. U.P. Colony Telibandha, Raipur,
     District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.   Himanchal Nihal S/o Late Shri Jarman Nihal Aged About 45 Years
     R/o Block No. 37, Room No. 02, B.S. U.P. Colony, Telibandha,
     Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3.   Hareram Vibhar S/o Shri Makhan Vibhar Aged About 45 Years R/o
     Block No. 36, Room No. 13, B.S. U.P. Colony, Telibandha, Raipur,
     District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4.   Jitendra Vibhar S/o Shri Hajar Vibhar Aged About 36 Years R/o
     Block No. 36, Room No. 04, B.S. U.P. Colony, Telibandha, Raipur,
     District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5.   Bhaskar Nayak S/o Shri Vikram Nayak Aged About 37 Years R/o
     Block No. 40, Room No. 11, B.S. U.P. Colony, Telibandha, Raipur,
     District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                          ---- Petitioners

                                 Versus

1.   State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban
     Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya
     Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.   Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3.   Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur
     Chhattisgarh.

4.   Director Directorate of Town And Country Planning, Naya Raipur,
     District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                       ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate

For Respondents No. 1, 2&4 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Additional A.G.

For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

08.03.2022

Heard Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Also heard Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned

counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3.

2. This public interest litigation was filed, essentially, praying for a

direction to the respondents to comply with the layout granted for

construction of 45 blocks and 720 flats by way of developing a garden

and community hall.

3. I.A. No. 04 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners stating that during the

pendency of the petition, respondent No. 3 has started the construction of

community hall, boundary wall of the garden, gate and also started

undertaking repairing works.

4. It is in that circumstance, it is averred in I.A. No. 04 of 2022 that the

petitioners do not want to pursue this public interest litigation at this

juncture and, accordingly, prays for withdrawal of the same with liberty to

revive the prayer, if need be.

5. Mr. Narayan submits that the petitioners may be allowed to

withdraw this petition with liberty to approach this Court again, if the

necessity arises.

6. Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, have no objection.

7. Accordingly, this public interest litigation is allowed to be withdrawn

with liberty to file afresh, if need be. All pending IAs stand disposed of.

                     Sd/-                                       Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                          (Gautam Chourdiya)
                Chief Justice                                  Judge




Hem