1 2025:CGHC:27815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2863 of 2025 1 - Bhawna Singh Tomar W/o Shri Rohit Singh Tomar Aged About 30 Years, 2 - Subra Singh Tomar W/o Shri Virendra Singh Tomar Aged About 38 Years, Both are R/o A-1, Sai Villa Colony, Bhathagaon, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Office At New Corporation Building, Near Mahila Thana, Po Raipur, Ps Civil Lines, Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh 2 - Zone Commissioner (Zone-06) Municipal Corporation Raipur, Office At New Bus Stand, Third Floor, Jalgrih Marg, Rawanbhatha, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/06/2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.06.25 17:54:16 +0530 2 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioners have been preferred this writ petition with the following relief(s) : “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the impugned notices dated 09.06.2025 (Ann P-1), being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction of appropriate nature restraining the respondent authorities from carrying out any coercive action with respect to the property of the Petitioners' family, until sufficient and effective opportunity of hearing has been afforded to them, after serving personal notice upon the owners of the premise. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction of appropriate nature restraining the respondent authorities from initiating any further action against the petitioners' family members.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have not followed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of 2025 SCC (1) and issued notice to the petitioners under Section 307 (3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and threatened to demolish the building of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondent authorities only issued notice and seeking documents with regard to the construction of the building of Rohit Singh Tomar and he was constructed the office building without any permission/approval from any competent authority. On 09.06.2025, notice was issued to Rohit Singh Tomar with regard to construction of building which he is using as his office. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record, I have found that respondent authorities only seeking documents with regard to permission/approval from any competent authority for construction of the building. However, petitioners have not given any reply. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to issue a fresh notice 4 to the petitioners within a period of 15 days from today, as per guideline of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. With the aforesaid observation & direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant