Lekhram Kaushik @ Lekhuram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 3440 of 2019 Lekhram Kaushik @ Lekhuram S/o Shri Radheshyam Kaushik, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Barela, Tahsil And District- Mungeli At Present Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. D.R.M. South East Central Railway Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate.

For State/R-1 & 2 :

Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate For Respondent no.3 :

Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 14.11.2019

1. Though the matter is listed today on default on account of PF not being paid to the respondents 3 & 4, it has been informed that both these respondents are represented through their respective advocates.

2. Today, Shri Amrito Das, advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent no.3 and submits that there are certain subsequent developments that

have transpired subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner herein had approached the District Collector in respect of the same grievance and the District Collector has passed an order in favour of the petitioner on 22.08.2019. Shri Das further makes a submission that the Corporation, in the light of the decision of the District Collector dated 22.08.2019, have decided to drop the entire auction proceeding itself as of now and as such, the very grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and the writ petition may accordingly be disposed of.

3. Counsel for the petitioner only apprehends that there is a possibility that pursuant to the disposal of the present writ petition the respondents may revise the auction proceeding and proceed further.

4. Given the statement by the counsel for respondent no.3 that subsequent to the order of the District Collector the entire auction proceeding itself has been dropped and that the Corporation would now take an appropriate decision and only thereafter would initiate a fresh proceeding, the petitioner as of now need not carry any such apprehension.

5. The writ petition thus at this stage stands disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Court in the event the petitioner is still aggrieved by any subsequent proceedings drawn by the respondents.

Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai