High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2896/2018disposed off

Ishwari Lal Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-10-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2896 of 2018 • Ishwari Lal Soni S/o Shri Manrakhan Lal Soni Aged About 75 Years A/o 75 Years, R/o Village Brahmachowk, Near Gokulpur School, Mahatma Gandhi Ward, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Collector Dhamtari OfÏce Of Collector, Rudri Road, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

4. Ramesh Jaiswal (name deleted as per Court Order) (Commissioner) Nagar Palika Nigam, Nagar Nigam OfÏce, Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

5. Bhawan Abhikari Nagar Palika Nigam Dhamtari, Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

6. Sukhdev Ram Sinha S/o Late Baliram Sinha R/o Village Devinawagaon, Tehsil-Narharpur Via Charama, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh

7. Om Prakash Sahu S/o Kishun Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Ekata Nagar Ama Talab Road, Tehsil Dhamtari, DistrictDhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

8. Thanuram Tarak Aged About 56 Years R/o Tarak Cycle Stores, Rambag Dhamtari, P.O.- Dhamtari, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

9. Nagar Palika Nigam Dhamtari Through The Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Nagar Nigam OfÏce, Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

For Petitioner Mr. VR Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent /State Mrs. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Respondent/ Municipal Corporation Mr. Mateen Siddique and Mr. Hussain Akhtar, Advocates Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 22/10/2018

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is permitted to delete the name of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari from the description of respondent No.4 during the course of the day. The other description of respondent No.4 shall remain as it is.

3. The petitioner has moved the representation- Annexure P/2 before the Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, who is not finalising the proceedings under Section 307 of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1956.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation would submit that the representation preferred by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

6. Let the Corporation decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law at the earliest. Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna