1 2025:CGHC:44144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2607 of 2021 1. Surjeet Singh S/o Amar Chand Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Sector 4, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Kumari Pramod D/o Surjeet Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Sector 4, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Directorate Of Animal Husbandry Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Director Veterinary Services, Office At Near Mandi Gate, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Office At Near Kalibari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Zone Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, Zone No. 1, Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai Pani Tanki, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwan Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Office At Dharsiwan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7. Permanent Committee For Agriculture Through Its Secretary, Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29. 08.2025 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.01 11:20:53 +0530 2 1. Heard on admission. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction setting aside/quashing the impugned notice dated 19-02-2021 issued by Respondent no. 5 under authority of Respondent no.4. 10.2 It is most respectfully prayed this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to respondent nos. 4 and 5 to not to interfere and or obstruct the petitioners from carrying out their lawful business of dairy and livestock. 10.3 It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant costs of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been operating Dairy within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, since 2018. He would further submit that the Dairy was established pursuant to a scheme launched by the State Government. He would also submit that proper permission was obtained from the concerned authorities, but respondent No. 5 has issued a show-cause notice according to the provisions of Section 264 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, for the removal of Dairy from the Municipal area to Gokuldham. He would fairly submit that the required permission from the Municipal Corporation was not obtained. He would contend that the interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 30.06.2021. He would further contend that the petitioners may be permitted to move an appropriate application seeking permission from respondent No. 5, and in turn, the said authority may be directed to consider and decide the said application strictly in accordance with the law within a stipulated time. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioners have no right to operate Dairy at the present place within the Municipal area. They would further submit that a separate place has already been earmarked to operate Dairy, i.e., Gokuldham, and the petitioners were directed to shift their Dairy from the present place to Gokuldham, and when they failed to comply with such a direction, notice Annexure P/1 was issued. They would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Considering the limited prayer made by Mr. Ali, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to move an application before respondent No. 4 seeking therein permission to run the Dairy at present place, and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide such an application within a period of 30 days in accordance with the law. For a period of 30 days, the interim order granted earlier shall remain in force. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant