Ring Road Bilaspur (C.G.) v. (Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
this stage, the present writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Judge Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Rukhsar
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 871 of 2026 1 - Sandeep Dubey S/o Shri Babulal Dubey Aged About 40 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Ring Road Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nagar Panchayat Gharghoda Through- Commissioner Nagar, Panchayat Gharghoda Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Gharghoda Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State / Respondent No.1 : Mr. Purunendra Khichariya, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board
27.02.2026
By filing the present petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to take a final decision on the impugned notice dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure -P/1).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice (Annexure -P/1) alleging that the petitioner sold the various plots of his land bearing khasra Nos.212/1/ख/2/6, 212/1/ख/2/5, 2 212/1/ख/2/7, 212/1/ख/2/1, 212/1/ख/2/3 and 212/1/ख/2/4 without obtaining coloniser licence and registration and without approval of the layout plan from the Town and Country Planning Department /Nagar Panchayat, therefore, the petitioner has been directed to submit the documents, failing which action would be taken against him under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed a reply dated
27.05.2025 (Annexure -P/2), despite that respondent No.3 has neither considered his reply nor taken a final decision on the impugned notice (Annexure -P/1). Hence, learned counsel prays that respondent No.3 may be directed to take an appropriate decision on the said notice within a stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the State/Respondent No.1 submits that he has no objection to the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner.
Operative part
Having considered the limited prayer of the counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, the present writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to take an appropriate decision on the notice dated (Annexure -P/1), to which the petitioner has already submitted a reply (Annexure -P/2), in accordance with law and expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Judge Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Rukhsar
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: this stage, the present writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.