Rabindra Niketan vs Devendra Kumar Janghel
2022 Latest Caselaw 3191 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                      NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              WA No. 95 of 2021
Rabindra Niketan, A Society Registered Under The Provisions of C G
Society Regitrikarn Adhininiyam, 1973, Through - Its General Secretary
Rupak Dutta S/o Late Subash Dutta (C.G.) Ward No. 69, Hudco, Bhilai,
District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
                                                               ---- Appellant
                                     Versus
1.     Devendra Kumar Janghel S/o Late Jethu Ram, Aged About 49
       Years R/o M.I.G. - I / 737, Hudco, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg
       Chhattisgarh.
2.     State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of
       Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur
       Chhattisgarh.
3.     Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Through Its Commissioner, Municipal
       Corporation, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
4.     Collector Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
5.     Superintendent of Police, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
                                                          ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Siddharth Rathore, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

02.05.2022

Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned senior counsel for the

appellant. Also heard Mr. Siddharth Rathore, learned counsel, appearing

for respondent No.1, Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government

Advocate, appearing for respondents No.2, 4 & 5 and Mr. H.B. Agrawal,

learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No.3.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 16.10.2020 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.2400 of 2020.

3. The appellant was the respondent No.5 in the writ petition.

4. The writ petition was disposed of without notice to the appellant.

5. Grievance expressed in the writ petition was that the appellant was

raising some illegal construction, such as, marriage hall, dance club, etc.

for commercial use.

6. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the

following directions :

"5. Given the said submissions by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition need not be kept pending and the same is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents particularly the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai to take an appropriate step in this regard in accordance with the provisions of law at the earliest, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner also would be at liberty to file a detailed representation both to the respondents 2 & 3 in this regard within a period of 15 days from today.

6. The Municipal Corporation, Bhilai also is directed to ensure an inspection of the site and verify whether any illegal permanent construction is being raised at the site or not. In case it is found to be illegal, appropriate restraint order be passed in this regard at the earliest."

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, notice was issued to the

appellant by the respondent No.3 on 09.02.2021. It also appears that

prior to 09.02.2021, another notice was issued on 23.01.2021. Though it

was not indicated in the order of the learned Single Judge that the

appellant be given opportunity of presenting its case, notice has been

issued by the respondent No.3 seeking explanation from the appellant.

Therefore, appellant cannot claim that any prejudice has been caused to

him by the order under assailment.

8. In that view of the matter, we see no good ground to interfere with

the order of the learned Single Judge. However, we observe that the

authority may take such steps as may be warranted after considering the

reply of the appellant, which is not filed by the appellant yet. Mr. Bhaduri

submits that the appellant will file reply within a period of four weeks' from

today.

9. With the aforesaid observations, writ appeal stands disposed of.

                        Sd/-                                  Sd/-
            (Arup Kumar Goswami)                 (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                 Chief Justice                                Judge
Anu