1 2025:CGHC:38017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4134 of 2025 1 - Seth Sultan Chand Nathmal Daga Dharamshala Trust Through Its Secretary - Shri Goverdhan Das Daga S/o Shri Ballabh Das Daga, Aged About 66 Years, R/o House No. 426, Daga Building, Shivdas Daga Marg, Civil Line, Near Rajbhawan, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Council Arang Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Arang, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned notice dated 30.07.2025 as it is non-est in the eyes of law and being violative of the principles of natural justice, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the object of the petition is to challenge the notice dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) which is in the form of order passed by Respondent no. 2 by exercising the powers conferred under Section 221 of the Municipal Council Act of 1961 by virtue of which, the Respondent no. 2 has directed for demolition of the structure/building of the petitioner trust and the said notice being arbitrary and unsustainable is liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. 3. Learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the petitioner to file fresh representation raising all his 3 grievance within 10 days from today and in turn the respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within further period of 15 days from the date the representation filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, rules and regulations. 6. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if the building condition is dilapidated to the extent it may endanger human life, then the petitioner will be responsible for the said mishap. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. C.C. today. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima