← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/371/2018disposed off

Suresh Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-02-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 371 of 2018 Suresh Shukla S/o Late Kalicharan Shukla, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Geeta Bhawan Road, Baikunthpur, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.3 :

Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. R.N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12/02/18 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for renewal of lease deed, the petitioner has already made a representation before the respondent authorities on 13.11.2017 but the order dated 29.01.2018 has been passed by the Corporation cancelling the allotment of shop to the petitioner which is unsustainable and bad in law. 2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent - Corporation would submit that petitioner's representation for renewal of lease deed will

be considered and decided within a period of one month from today. 3.

Be that as it may, the respondent - Municipal Corporation is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and for a period of 45 days, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka