1 2026:CGHC:5702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 423 of 2026 Pankaj Patni S/o Shri Narendra Kumar Patni Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 32 Sadar Bazar (Hatri Bazar) Durg Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, The Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Municipal Corporation, Durg Through Its Commissioner , District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Building Officer, Municipal Corporation Dug District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Seth Ratanchand Surana Dharamshal Through Its Secretary, Satishchand Surana S/o Late Suganchand Surana, R/o Surana Building Ganjpara Durg Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 3/State : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.02.04 11:21:46 +0530 2 “(i) Quash and set aside the impugned final notice dated 01.01.2026 issued by the Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Durg (Annexure P/1); (ii) Restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action, including demolition or eviction, against the petitioner in respect of his Shop No.92, Hatri Bazar, Drug: (iii) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate application in WPC No.2289/2020, to challenge the impugned last notice dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation, Durg, as the issue relating to subject shop is already pending in aforesaid writ petition, in which an order of status quo has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. On due consideration, the prayer is allowed and learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. 6. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini