1 2025:CGHC:39355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4198 of 2025 1 - Ramashankar Vaishya S/o Ashrafi Vaishya Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Ward No.22, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Camp-2, Power House Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - The Commissioner Nagar Palik Nigam, Bhilai District- Durg, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful 2 possession and ongoing business activities in Shop No. 2 at Sasta Bazar, Camp-2, Bhilai where at present petitioner is situated. 10.2 Direct the respondents to remove and/or correct the misleading market layout map displayed at the market premises, which wrongly starts the shop numbering from S.No. 2 instead of S.No. 1 thereby misrepresenting the position of the petitioner’s shop; 10.4 Pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any specific order but the illegal action of the respondents who without any authority are attempting to unlawfully interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of Shop No. 2 situated at Sasta Bazar, Camp-2, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.). the petitioner is aggrieved by the unlawful and intentional acts of the respondents who are creating artificial disputes regarding shop numbers. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the present petition may be disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondents with regard to correction of map. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. On perusal of the record I have found that in WPC No. 1306/2025 vide 3 order dated 07.03.2025 this Court had directed that if the petitioner is having possession over the plot/shop no. 2, then this possession shall not be disturbed by the corporation. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances fo the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction that petitioner shall file detailed representation before the respondent no. 2 along with all the relevant documents and copy of the petition and order of this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in turn respondent no. 2 shall decide the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law/rules/regulations expeditiously as soon as possible, subject to verification of both the maps. 7. Meanwhile, the possession of the petitioner over plot/shop no. 2 shall not be disturbed by the respondent no. 2. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima