1 CGHC010270352026 2026:CGHC:32788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3906 of 2026 1 - Saiyed Fazil Ajaj S/o Late Saiyed Hussain Aged About 52 Years R/o Qr. No. 366, Street- 06, Ward -42, Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 491001, Proprietor New Taj Welding Shop No. 85-86, Ravishankar Stadium, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disastrous Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Work Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti Reg. No. 3645 Ravishankar Stadium, Durg Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - District Collector Cum Chairman Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Ravishankar Stadium, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Secretary Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, (C.G.) RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.07.30 18:53:31 +0530 2 6 - Sub-Divisional Officer Public Work Department Division Durg, Near New Bus Stand, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 7 - Assistant Registrar Firms And Societies Durg Division Padmanabhpur Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.) 8 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Uttam Chand, Advocate. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. Today, the case is listed for orders on default. 2. The default as pointed out by the Registry is hereby overruled. 3. Heard Mr. Uttam Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General for the State. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned pre-eviction notice dated 25.06.2026 issued by the Secretary & Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti, District Durg (C.G.), whereby they have been directed to vacate their respective shops on or before 24.07.2026. The impugned notice has been issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Public Works Department stating that the commercial shops allotted to the petitioner has become old and are in a dilapidated condition, rendering them unsafe for occupation and use. It has further been stated in the notice that in the event the petitioner fail to vacate the premises 3 within the stipulated period, he shall be evicted with the assistance of the district administration and the expenditure incurred in carrying out such eviction shall be recovered from the petitioner by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. 5. Assailing the aforesaid pre-eviction notice, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily and in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice by issuing the impugned notice without affording any meaningful opportunity of hearing or considering any alternative arrangement for rehabilitation of the shopkeepers. It is contended that the petitioner has been carrying on his business from the allotted shop for several years and his livelihood is entirely dependent upon the said establishments. According to the petitioner, the impugned action, if implemented, would deprive him of his only source of livelihood and is, therefore, violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. He has, accordingly, invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashment of the impugned notice and appropriate consequential reliefs. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra, as the issue is arising out of the very same pre-eviction notice dated 25.06.2026 has already been considered and decided by this Court in WPC No.3730/2026 and other connected 4 matters, decided by a common order dated 23.07.2026. It is submitted that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said decision and, therefore, deserve to be disposed of in terms thereof. 7. This Court, while disposing of WPC No.3730/2026 and analogous cases vide common order dated 23.07.2026, observed as follows:– “10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioners are occupying their respective shops pursuant to allotment orders/agreements executed by the competent authority on payment of monthly rent. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been carrying on their respective businesses from the said shops for nearly two decades or more, and for many of them the shops constitute their principal source of livelihood. It is also borne out from the material placed on record that the commercial complex in which the shops are situated has been reported by the Public Works Department to be in a dilapidated and unsafe condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. 11. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the petitioners do not possess any vested or indefeasible right to continue in occupation of the shops indefinitely. Equally, however, the State and its instrumentalities, while taking action for eviction in public interest, are expected to act in a manner that is fair, reasonable and consistent with constitutional values. The petitioners have been carrying on their business from the premises for a considerable period of time and their livelihood is directly dependent upon the said establishments. Directing them to vacate the premises during the rainy season, without affording them a reasonable opportunity to make alternative arrangements or to resettle their business, would result in undue hardship. 12. The State, being a welfare State, is expected to balance public interest with the legitimate concerns of citizens whose livelihood is likely to be affected by administrative action. While ensuring public safety by removing occupants from an unsafe structure is undoubtedly a legitimate objective, the authorities 5 cannot ignore the consequences that such action may have upon the livelihood of the petitioners. The record reveals that the petitioners have submitted representations requesting reasonable time and appropriate rehabilitation or alternative arrangements. The said representations deserve due consideration before any coercive action is undertaken. 13. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6). The right to livelihood has also been recognized as an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Although the petitioners cannot insist upon continuation of their occupation contrary to law, the procedure adopted for their eviction must be fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary so as to adequately safeguard their constitutional rights. 14. Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the long-standing occupation of the petitioners, the fact that their businesses constitute their primary source of livelihood, and the prevailing rainy season, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by directing the respondents to reconsider the representation of the petitioners with a hope of alternative arrangements by the petitioners for shifting their respective establishments. 15. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3-Secretary and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Krindangan Samiti Durg, District Durg C.G. is directed to reconsider the representations submitted by the petitioners for providing alternative arrangements to petitioners for running their shops or to pass appropriate reasoned orders thereon, after affording them an opportunity of hearing, within a reasonable period. The respondents shall also consider providing reasonable assistance, or any other lawful arrangement to facilitate the petitioners in shifting their business establishments. It is further directed that no coercive action for eviction shall be taken against the petitioners for a period of four months from the date of this order. However, it is made clear that, since the shops have been found to be in a dilapidated condition, the petitioners may continue to carry on their business therein for a period of four months at their own risk and cost. In the event of any mishap or untoward incident occurring during this period, the petitioners alone shall be solely 6 responsible for the consequences thereof. The State and its authorities shall bear no liability or responsibility for any such mishap or incident. Upon expiry of the said period, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties. The present order has been passed only with a view to balance the competing public interest of ensuring public safety with the petitioners' need for reasonable time to make alternative arrangements for their livelihood.” 8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical in all material particulars to the one which came up for consideration before this Court in WPC No.3730/2026 and analogous cases, decided by common order dated 23.07.2026. The impugned notice challenged herein is the same pre-eviction notices dated 25.06.2026 issued by the same authority, founded on the very same report of the Public Works Department declaring the commercial complex to be in a dilapidated and unsafe condition. Since the issues involved, the reliefs claimed and the legal questions arising for consideration are identical, and no distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court sees no reason to take a view different from the one already taken in WPC No.3730/2026 and analogous cases. 9. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in the common order dated 23.07.2026 passed in WPC No.3730/2026 and analogous 7 cases, the present writ petition also stand disposed of in the same terms and with the same directions as contained therein. 10. It is clarified that all the observations and directions issued in the aforesaid common order shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present writ petition. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju