1 2025:CGHC:61292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5780 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar Rajak S/o Late Itwari Rajak Aged About 40 Years Proprietor Santosh Loha And Plastic, R/o Chantidih Near Kali Mandir, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - The District Collector, Bilaspur C.G. Collectorate Building, Near Circuit House Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - The Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur C.G. Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, Near Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 5 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.18 13:48:47 +0530 2 Order On Board 16/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing immediate restoration and delivery to the petitioner of all seized goods, machinery and other movable/immovable property seized on 16.10.2025, and direct the Respondents to restore the Petitioner to peaceful possession of the business premises at Chatidih Science College Road, Bilaspur, within a time fixed by this Hon’ble Court. 2 Award monetary compensation and restitution to the Petitioner for the value of the seized/destroyed goods and machines (Rs.86,00,000/- or as assessed by the Court), loos of business, loss of goodwill and other consequential losses, together with interest thereon at commercial rates from the date of seizure/demolition till realization. 3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner after obtaining license under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Shop and Establishment Act, 1958, is doing business of purchase and sale of scrap. Respondent/Corporation had affixed the notice in the premises of the petitioner granting only 24 hours time to remove the scrap goods purchased by petitioner from his place and also to remove the tin-shed and on the very next day, officials of the Corporation and other 3 employee came to the premises, demolished tin-shed and also seized the scrap articles. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Corporation would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner is doing business of scrap without obtaining proper license from the Corporation as required under the law. He submits that certificate issued under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 is to run the shop but for running the particular business of scrap, the competent authority to issue license in this regard is Corporation. He contended that due to keeping of scrap in very scattered manner, it was also blocking the water way, on which, notice was issued to petitioner and when it was not removed, action was taken. He contended that when the officials and other persons along with machinery went to the premises of petitioner, relative of the petitioner Vicky Rajak had made request that he himself will remove the tin-shed and accordingly, he removed the tin-shed by own machinery and help of manpower. He contended that only dilapidated wall was demolished that too with the permission of Vicky Rajak. As the Petitioner has not produced the licence, therefore, the articles purchased in the business of scrap purchase and sale, is seized. Petitioner is informed by the authorities that if he applies for the license, the goods seized will be released in his favour. Petitioner till date has not submitted any documents. He also submits that sealing done by respondent/Corporation is also removed by officials of Corporation by 3rd of December, 2025. 4 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that according to his instruction, petitioner has submitted all relevant documents before the competent authority yesterday and also appeared physically before the authority on 12.12.2025. He also submits that after getting the knowledge that separate license is required, petitioner has also submitted an application before the Corporation for grant of license for running the business of scrap. 5. Learned State counsel submits that grievance of petitioner is against the Corporation only. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 7. So far as the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent authorities have unauthorizedly seized the scrap goods from the premises of petitioner is concerned, during course of arguments, it revealed that petitioner was not possessing license to do the business of scrap within the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur area and as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner has already submitted an application recently for the licence to be issued by the Corporation, Bilaspur. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the submission made by learned counsel for Respondent/Corporation, that if petitioner makes an application for grant of license the goods will be released, it is directed to respondent No.3, that in the event petitioner has already submitted an application for issuance of the license for running the business of scrap, the goods/articles seized from the premises of the petitioner shall be released immediately, if there is no other impediment. 5 9. So far as as the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to grant of compensation against illegal demolition in view of the submission made by learned counsel for respondent/corporation that it is the relative of the petitioner Vicky Rajak, who has removed the construction of tin-shed by engaging manpower of his own and deployment of machinery, in the opinion of this Court, such relief cannot be granted. If grievance of petitioner is that respondent/Corporation has demolished the tin-shed forcefully without granting proper opportunity, then from the submission of respondent No.3, it is subject matter of evidence and proof as to how the tin-shed is removed, which cannot be decided in the writ proceeding, therefore, the writ petition so far as the second ground is concerned, is disposed of. For the second relief, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceeding before the Court of competent jurisdiction for grant of compensation against respondent No.3. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions this petition stands disposed of Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram