1 2025:CGHC:49667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 877 of 2022 1 - Sombhatt S/o Madanlal Bhatt, Aged About 50 Years R/o 648, Street No. 39, Smriti Nagar, Junwani, City- Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Baljeet Kaur Khalsa W/o Indrajeet Singh Khalsa, Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 192-A, Street No. 31, Ward No. 01, Smriti Nagar, Junwani, City Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Town And Country Planning Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, District Durg Collector Office, Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg, Through The Commissioner, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mr. Himanshu Deshmukh, Building Permission Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Anurag Tripathi, PL For Respondents No. 3 & 4 None present. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 06/10/2025 The petitioners have challenged the acts and omissions of the respondents authorities whereby serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and therefore they are seeking for the following reliefs: 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus as to quash the impugned order/notice (annexure P/10 issued by the respondent No.3. 10.2. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 & 4 not to issue unnecessary and illegal notices to the petitioners by misusing their powers and on the other hand to initiate action against Mr. B.C.Banchhor who is making false complaints/acting against the petitioner’s rights. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition.” The case is listed for final hearing. None for the respondents No. 3 & 4. On the last date of hearing ie. on 22.03.2025, this Court has ordered as under: “Reply has not been filed by respondents No.3 and 4 though notices have been issued on 17.02.2022 and vakalatnama has already been filed way back on 08.03.2022 but till date reply has not been filed as such, opportunity to file reply is hereby closed.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 & 4 was called upon however, as no reply has been filed despite clear opportunity and issuance of notices, the Court proceeds on the basis of material on record. 3. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.01.2022 (Annenxure P/1) whereby the building permission granted earlier to the petitioner No.1 has been suspended by respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation Bhilai after about 13 months. Pertinently, more than 95% of the construction of the residential houses on the said plot has already been completed. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 is a bona fide purchaser of the residential plot bearing Khasra No. 288/1 situated at Smriti Nagar, Bhilai having purchased the same from the registered cooperative housing society way back on 25.08.2004. The building permission was initiated granted on 12.08.2005 and after facing certain disputes raised by a third party, B.C.Banchhor the petitioners successfully challenged the arbitrary stop work notices issued earlier by filing a Writ Petition No. 4848/2006 which was decided in their favour on 16.03./2011. Thereafter petitioners complied with all statutory requirements, obtained requisite land use permissions from the Town and Country Planning Department and secured fresh building permission dated 11.12.2020. Construction was undertaken in good faith with due financial support from Punjab National Bank and was substantially completed (over 95%). Despite submitting replies to interim notices, the respondents arbitrarily suspended the building 4 permission through the impugned order dated 19.01.2022 without proper enquiry or consideration of facts, in gross violation of principles of natural justice, causing grave hardship and harassment. 5. It is further submitted that earlier this Court had stayed coercive action on similar notices vide order dated 04.01.2022 in W.P.C. No. 5462/2021. The impugned suspension order thus stands in violation of judicial mandate and is malafide. Counsel for the petitioners accordingly prays for quashing of the suspension order, restoration of the building permission and direction to respondents to allow construction to continue in accordance with law. 6. Contention of the learned State counsel is that the Municipal Corporation is duty bound to ensure that building permissions are granted and suspended only after strict compliance with statutory norms and due process. The suspension order dated 19.01.2022 has been passed based on complaints and objections raised by the third party regarding certain alleged non-compliance relating to land use and cooperative society approvals. It is submitted that while the earlier notices and stay order was passed, the Corporation found prima facie reasons to suspend the permission in the interest of orderly urban development and public safety and such exercise of power is both legal and justified. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that the petitioner obtained original building permission in the year 2005 and after the initial dispute and court order in the year 2011, had lawfully applied for and secured fresh building permission in the month of December 2020. The construction is over 95% complete and 5 the petitioners have been carrying it out with the municipal conditions and duly responding to notices. The impugned suspension notice dated 19.01.2022 was passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and despite this Court’s earlier order dated 04.01.2022, restraining action on the basis of certain notices. The respondents have not placed on record any material that justifies suspension at this stage or demonstrates any urgent public interest or statutory violation warranting immediate suspension. The conduct of suspending permission after construction is substantially complete without proper enquiry or consideration, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the petitioners appear to have acted bona fide, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) suspending the building permission is herby quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue construction activity strictly in accordance with the fresh building permission dated 11.12.2020 and relevant laws subject to verification and compliance of conditions. 9. With the above observation, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.08 10:44:29 +0530