Judgment · High Court

1. Aktoil Bhartiya Gum Ghasidas Mafaasamiti, a society duly registered under the relevant provisions of the M.P.Societies Registekaran Aduniyam, 1959 having its registered of Bce at Aamapara, Swami Atmanand Ward, Raipur.

2. M/s. Bhilai BuiSdeis Private Lituited, a company duly registered under the relevant provisions of Compames Act, 1956 having its office at B-2/11, Ravi Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur through its Managiag Direetor, Shri Gulab Jain, aged about 48 yeais, son of Shri Lalchand Jain, residait of Choubsy Colony, Raipur.

3. Gulab Jain, Managing Director ofM/s. Bhilai Builders Private Lumted aged about 48 years, son of Shri Lalchand Jaia, resident of Choubey Colony, Raipur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1

2. State of Chhattisgarh fhrough the Secretary, Mimstry of Revenue, Secretariat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Tlie Chliattisgarh St^e Scheduled Caste throug}i its Secretary, 128, Sector-2 Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur. Comniission

3. The Collector, Raipur. PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanthotri, J. Present: Shri Vivek Chopda, Advocate appearmg on behalf of Shri B.P.Shanna, Advocate forthepetitioners. Shri Vivek Shanna, Panel Lawyer fortiie State/respondeirts 1 & 3. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 17U> day of July, 2009) Heard leamed counsel fcs tiie parties.

By this petition, the petitioners seek for quashing of fhe notice dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure P/7) issued by the respondent No. 2 and 1fae .notice dated 28.12.2007 (Aime3au-e P/9) issued by the respondent No. 3.

Aceording to leamed counsel appearu^ fia- the petitioners, a lease deed in respect off lie land situated at Aamapara, Raipur was exscuted by (he then State Govemment on 11.02.1987 (Amiexure P/l). The period of lease is up to March, 2016. The petitioners are regularly paying the lease rent as per the lease deed. A notice dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure P/7) bas been issued ^ d •2-' c, ^ Y (iE.i'at)^ ""^' "^:c^-. s&.. by the respondent No. 2 statine therein that the said land is being used for coinmercial purpose and not for the welfare of the society.

Shri Chopda, in fact the petitioners are constmcting some stnicture by incurring huge expenses, which is at the leamed counsel submits that, stage of eompletion. As per the lease deed, fhere is no condition prescribed in respect of the use of land. The petitioners replied to the notice dated 11-9-2007 (Annexure - P/7) on 19-9-2007 (Annexiire - P/6). Thereafter, one more notice dated 28-12-2007 (Annexure - P/9) was issued by the Collector calling upon the petitioners to show cause asto why tlie lease deed should not be cancelled for breach of conditions of the lease deed. Shri -^ Chopda further submits that the lease deed carmot be canceUed on fhe ground that they are using the same for commercial purpose. Thus, this petition.

I have heard leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioners, perused the pleadings and documeats appended thereto. On perusal of the records, it appeara that without submittmg any reply to the notice dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P/9), and without any specific order being passed, the petitioners have rushed to feis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ'direction to the respondent authorities.

The petition is premature, as no fma! order has been passed on notice dated 28-12-2007. The petitiojiers should file reply to the said notice aiid iffhere is some order passed prejudiciag the case of the petitioners, the petitioners may very well approach competent Court having the jurisdiction for appropriate relief, ifso advised.

Accordingly, the petition, being premature, is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The petitioners will have fall oppoitunity before the respondent No. 3 to file their response and clarifv their position and to produce necessary documents, whatsoever is pennissible under provisions of law. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /• -^»_