1 2025:CGHC:19617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1432 of 2019 • Manoj Yadaw S/o Late Jagmohan Yadav Aged About 43 Years Durga, Chowk, Sadae Ward Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur, Civil And Revenue District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Administration Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin 492002 2. The Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kind enough to quash the impugned notice dated 15.02.2019 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court issue an order or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. withdraw its letter no. /8-14F/2015/18 Naya Raipur dated 17.08.2015. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court issue an order or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to execute the lease agreement with petitioner. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire records from the respondents. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.5 That, any other order or orders or direction or relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, shop No. 15, Naya Bus Stand, ground floor, Jagdalpur was allotted to the petitioner but, later on, it was canceled vide order dated 17.08.2015 by the State Government and a notice was issued in this regard by respondent No. 2 on 15.02.2019. He would further submit that the matter was referred to the State Government afresh and approval was granted on 08.07.2021 in favour of the petitioner and other shop owners. He would also submit that respondent No. 2 is not coming forward to register the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that approval has already been granted to allot the shop to the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be redressed. With regard to the registration of the lease deed, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before respondent No. 2 and the authority concerned is directed to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with the law subject to verification. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti