DN: cn=AJAY v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 s. 264
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.
Judgment
Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, PL. Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice ) Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 30/01/2026
#1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- 2 "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and set-aside the impugned orders Annexure-P/1 and P/2.
10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice."
#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a Chicken shop in the name of "Hindustan Chicken Center" since more than 20 years. However, on 03.11.2025, respondent No.3 issued notice (Annexure- P/2) to the petitioner for closing of his shop alleging that the shop is running in violation of 246, 264, 283 and 284 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in brevity the "Act 1961"). When the petitioner approached the respondent/Authorities to not close the shop, again a notice has been issued against him on 12.12.2025 (Annexure-P/1) for sealing of the said shop. He further submits that no specific place has been assigned to the petitioner in compliance of Section 264 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. Therefore, the impugned notices are bad in law and same deserve to be quashed.
#3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would not dispute the fact that no specific place has been assigned in compliance of Section 264 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961.
#4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused and the record.
#5. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent No.3 and also considering the provision contained in Section 3 264 of the Act 1961, since no specific place has been assigned by the Municipal Council Gaurela, the impugned notice Annexure-P/2 dated
03.11.2025 and subsequent notice Annexure-P/1 dated 12.12.2025 are not sustainable. Hence, impugned notices deserves to be and are hereby quashed.
#6. However, liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.3/Authority that after assigning a particular place in compliance of Section 264 of the Act 1961, it may take appropriate steps in respect of the petitioner's shop, in accordance with law.
#7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.
#8. Pending/interim application(s), if any, also stands disposed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 — s. 264.
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.