1 2025:CGHC:4891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 784 of 2019 1 - Narmada Prasad Suryavanshi, S/o Late Mang Singh Suryavanshi Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Sakari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Throuhg Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Sakari, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Tahsildar, Sakari, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.01.2025 Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the notice dated 03-12-2018 (Annexure P- 1) and direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from that place in compliance of office notice dated 03- 12-2012 and allow him to remain in the same shop. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Kesharwani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been running a shop at Bazarpara, Nagar Panchayat, Sakri for the last 15 years. He would further submit that a notice was issued by respondent No.2 on 03.12.2018 to vacate the premises. Mr. Kesharwani would contend that a representation was made by the petitioner for the allotment of the shop without auction as the petitioner is a poor person. He would further contend that a similar representation was made on 20.09.2010 but till date, no decision has been taken by respondent No.2. He would lastly submit that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the prayer of the petitioner with regard to the allotment of the shop without auction. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kesharwani. 3 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in possession for the last 15 years and his representations have not been decided by respondent No.2 till date, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in an objective manner and to take a decision preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha