1 / 4 2025:CGHC:6990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 819 of 2025 1 - Sushil Shukla S/o. Late Vinod Kumar Shukla Aged About 57 Years R/o. Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Surguja Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Anil Kumar Shukla S/o. Late Vinod Kumar Shukla Aged About 55 Years R/o. Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Adv. 2 / 4 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 07/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 31/01/2025 by which the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has passed an order under Section 307(3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act of 1956”). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 31/01/2025 has been passed by the respondent No.3/Commissioner by exercising the power under Section 307(3) of the Act of 1956 on the ground that the petitioner while installing a lift in the constructed house of the petitioner on his own land, has not intimated the Municipal Corporation. The impugned order has been passed with the presumption that there is violation of Section 293 and 307 the Act of 1956 which is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner is only installing a lift whereas the provision of Section 293 and 307 will attract only when (i) erect or re-erect any building; or (ii) commence to erect or re-erect any building; or (iii) make any material external alteration to any building; or (iv) construct or re- construct any projecting portion of a building xxxx. However in the present case, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order without considering the reply dated 30/01/2025 (Annexure P/11) which was submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 24/01/2025 wherein the petitioner has explained in detail 3 / 4 mentioning about the installation of lift in his own house which is also on his own land of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner also apprised the Commissioner vide its intimation letter dated 02/09/2024 (Annexure P/7) under the provision of Section 295(3) of the Act of 1956 that a lift is being installed in the constructed house of the petitioner. Hence there is proper compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1956 is being made before installation of lift in the house of the petitioner, however the Commissioner has passed the impugned order without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner is contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, on instruction, submits that the representation and reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered till date and the same will be considered after the election period is over. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents as well as the impugned order dated 31/01/2025 passed by the Commissioner, reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner and the intimation dated 02/09/2024 (Annexure P/7). 5. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has intimated the Commissioner before starting the work of installation of lift in his own constructed house. The petitioner has already intimated the respondent/Commissioner and the reply has also been submitted in detail explaining about the installation of lift in his own house and he also reiterated the fact that prior intimation 4 / 4 has been given to the Commissioner before starting the work of installation of lift in his house, however, the Commissioner has passed the order dated 31/01/2025 without considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 6. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned order dated 31/01/2025 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, the Municipal Corporation is at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the parties as well as to the respondent No.4 and pass a detailed order in accordance with law, if so desired. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar