1 2025:CGHC:27506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2520 of 2020  Purnima Dharamgudi W/o Manoj Kumar Dharamgudi Aged About 42 Years Mathpara, Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Secretary Urban Development Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, Chhattigarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary Chhattisgarh Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Commissioner Office Of The Municipal Commissioner, Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. Executive Magistrate Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6. Tahsildar Durg Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7. S.D.M. Durg Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8. Sambhag Aayukt Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 9. Likhan Sahu (Objector) R/o Naya Para Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 10.Narendra Nishad (Objector) R/o Naya Para Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 11.Sattu Nishad (Objector) R/o Naya Para Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 12.Khorbahara Nishad (Objector) R/o Naya Para Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 13.S.P Durg Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 14.C. S. P. Durg Durg, Chhattisgarh 15.Bhawan Adhikari O/'o Municipal Corporation, Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 16.T.I. Kotwali Thana Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.25 12:07:32 +0530 2 (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No. 9 to 12 : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24. 06.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to allow this writ petition and to pass a suitable direction in the form of mandamus, certiorari to the respondent 1 to 7 to remove tendamic the lock and seal put there during the Corona pandemic period on 16-07-2020 and had demolished the school wall and gate. 10.2 This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to pass an order to the respondent number 4 declaring the demolish done on 16-07-2020 as Arbitry and violative of petitioner's right enshrined in Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The poor and down trodden children right to get education was also infringed by the Executive action. So kindly set aside the demolition notice dated 15-07-2020 as illegal and render justice to the poor petitioner and as well as poor down trodden children who was always targeted and tortured by the State Authority. 10.3 To pass such further and other orders as this Hon'ble High Court deem fit looking to the facts and grounds of the petitioner's case. An Affidavit in support of this petition is being filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was running a primary school, and the building was purchased from one Sunil Kumar Thakur. He would further submit that the application moved by the petitioner for the grant of lease is still pending consideration in appeal. He would also submit that without the authority of law and affording any opportunity of hearing, the Municipal Corporation, Durg sealed the 3 premises on 16.07.2020. He would contend that a show-cause notice with regard to the demolition was issued to the petitioner on 15.07.2020. It is further contended that the petitioner was running a school and poor children were pursuing their studies. It is also contended that as the action of the respondent Municipal Corporation was contrary to the mandate of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and the institution was sealed without affording any opportunity of hearing; the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before the Municipal Corporation, Durg and in turn, the authority concerned may be directed to decide it expeditiously strictly in accordance with the law after affording due opportunity of hearing. 3. On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kesharwani. He would submit that the petitioner has no right over the Government land. He would further submit that though the application moved by the petitioner for the grant of lease is pending consideration in appeal, but it does not confer any right in his favor until the lease is granted. 4. Learned counsels appearing for other respondents would support the contentions made by Mr. Agrawal. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the building, which was in possession of the petitioner, was sealed by the Municipal Corporation, Durg on 16.07.2020, whereas, the notice was issued on 15.07.2020; therefore, at this juncture, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before the Municipal Corporation, Durg/competent authority within a period of 15 days raising all 4 available grounds, and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide it strictly in accordance with the law, preferably within a further period of 30 days. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant