1 2025:CGHC:34322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4175 of 2019  Niyaz Khan S/o Abdul Karim Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. UNS Deo, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned notice dated 08.11.2019 (Abnnexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the authorities not to take any coercive step against the petitioner for vacating shop no. 15. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.21 16:02:22 +0530 2 given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a small business in Shop No. 15 constructed by respondent No. 2 at Rajeev Gandhi Complex, Pandaria. He would further submit that the petitioner has been paying rent regularly without any default. He would also submit that the petitioner has paid advance rent up to the year 2026. He would contend that without authority of law and without any reason, respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice, directing the petitioner to vacate shop No. 15. He would further contend that the petitioner filed a reply to the said application on 18.11.2019. He would pray to quash the notice issued by respondent No. 2 dated 08.11.2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to vacate shop No. 15 on 08.11.2019 and a reply was filed on 18.11.2019, the matter came up for hearing before the President in Council on 18.11.2019 itself, whereas, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner on 13.11.2019 without affording proper opportunity to respondent No. 2 to consider the reply filed by the petitioner. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Vide order dated 27.09.2019, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. It appears that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.11.2019 to vacate shop No. 15, and a reply was filed on 18.11.2019. As the reply has already been filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from today, and the interim order granted earlier in favour of the 3 petitioner shall remain in force for 45 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant