1 / 5 CGHC010272542020 2026:CGHC:31371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3190 of 2020 1 - Gopal Krishna Singhal S/o Shri Raghuvar Dayal Singhal Aged About 42 Years R/o D-09 Rama Life City Village Sakri Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raghuvar Dayal Singhal S/o Late Shri Shiv Dayal Singhal Aged About 80 Years R/o D 09, Rama Life City, Village Sakri, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-07-2026) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Bhavan Adhikari, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. MPS Bhatia, Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Resp. No.1/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.28 14:36:16 +0530 2 / 5 For Resp. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Intervenor : Mr. B.N. Mishra, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “ 10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case mentioned in para 3 of the petition. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/ quash the impugned notice dt.02.11.2020 (Annexure P-1) for the ends of justice. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 10.4) That, the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned Notice dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-14) issued by the Municipal Corporation Bilaspur/ the respondents No. 2 & 3, in the ends of justice and may further be pleased to direct the Municipal Corporation Bilaspur/ the respondents No. 2 & 3 to unseal the lock/seal put on the property of the petitioner and to hand over the possession of the building to the petitioners, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are owner of the property subject matter of notice Annexure P-1. After receipt of notice, petitioners revealed that though the compounding of extra construction has taken place between the petitioners as also respondent -Municipal Corporation and petitioners have also deposited part of amount computed by Municipal Corporation for compounding 3 / 5 the extra construction made, respondent- Municipal Corporation included that issue in the notice and further that respondent- Corporation has also pointed out that Rain Water Harvesting System has not been installed in the campus of property subject matter of dispute which is not correct. Rain Water Harvesting System was developed at the time of construction of building itself. Notice mentions that Municipal Corporation inspected the property subject matter of writ petition. After receipt of notice, petitioners had also submitted reply. However, apprehending that some adverse action may be taken this writ petition was filed prior to decision on notice. After filing of writ petition, respondent- Municipal Corporation has taken decision on the notice mentioning that reply was considered. However, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has only recorded that reply was not found satisfactory. There is no specific mention that for what reason or the ground, reply submitted by petitioners was not bound to be satisfactory and violation as mentioned in notice still exists. 3. Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation would submit that after issuance of notice, petitioners have straightway approached this Court by filing writ petition instead of filing reply. After receipt of reply, respondent- Corporation has considered the reply and thereafter has taken a decision and intimated to petitioners vide letter dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-14). He also contended that entire compounding fees which was computed at the time of initiation of proceeding of compounding of extra construction, was not deposited by petitionerx within the time frame. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the 4 / 5 documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Grievance of the petitioners is that notice Annexure P-1 was issued without considering the correct facts. It is also case of the petitioners that petitioners have specifically pleaded in the reply with regard to deposit of amount after compounding extra construction and further that Rain Water Harvesting system is already installed at the time of construction of building. Petitioners had submitted reply specifying the facts or clarifying the issue which is subject matter of notice. 6. From perusal of the Annexure P-14 i.e. letter dated 17.12.2020, it is reflecting that Commissioner has not dealt with each of the point subject matter of notice along with reply submitted by petitioners and arrived at conclusion that reply submitted on particular point is not acceptable for such and such reason. From bare perusal of letter Annexure P-14, it is apparent that decision on the notice is taken not by speaking order. Under the provision of law, if authority issues notice, seeks reply, then he is under an obligation to pass speaking order dealing with issue subject matter of notice, considering the reply on each of the point on which reply has been submitted, which is lacking in the decision taken by the respondent – Municipal Corporation vide Annexure P-14. 7. For the foregoing discussions, in the opinion of this Court, decision taken by respondent-Municipal Corporation as is reflecting in order dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-14) is not sustainable which is liable to be and is accordingly quashed. 8. Respondent- Municipal Corporation is directed to take fresh decision 5 / 5 on the notice dated 02.11.2020 considering the reply dated 04.11.2020 submitted by the petitioners and to pass speaking order on each of the point, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. 9. Till decision is taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation as observed above, interim order passed earlier on 04.01.2021 shall remain in force. Sd/Sd Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen