1 2025:CGHC:878 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6467 of 2024 1 - Raja @ Akil Khan S/o Rashid Khan Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Ward No.26, Near Mahamaya Mandir, Talapara Tahsil Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Municipal Corporation, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattistgarh 2 - Cellector , Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Zone Commssioner Zone No. 04, City Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sadir Ali on behalf of Ms. Kavita Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.08 10:42:15 +0530 2 impugned notice dated 13/12/2024 (Annexure-P/1) issued by Respondent No.6/Zone Commissioner, whereby the petitioner was directed under Section 302 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act 1956’) for removal of encroachment within a period of three days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner for removal of encroachment within a period of three days is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law, therefore, the same should be quashed. 3. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submit that the action initiated under Section 302 of the Act, 1956 is appealable under Section 403 of the Act, 1956 and as such an appeal shall lie before the Commissioner and this writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned final notice issued under Section 302 of the Act, 1956. 5. From perusal of the impugned notice, it shows that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by issuing a proper notice to him. Apart from this, if the petitioner is having any grievance against the impugned action of the Corporation, the same can be assailed by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. 6. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed with 3 a liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach before the Appellate Court. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul