1 CGHC010365912026 2026:CGHC:40577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4763 of 2026 Eshwa Luxary Spa Through Proprietor Harvinder Singh Grover S/o Balvinder Singh Groover Aged 30 Years R/o H. No. 41/430, Milan Chowk Tikrapara, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principle Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, White House, Nagar Nigam Office Mahtama Gandhi Sadan, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Of Police Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Davendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD ORDER ON BOARD 17.09.2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the sealing of the petitioner's shop by the officials of the Municipal Corporation in 2 an arbitrary and vague manner. The petitioner has also challenged the action whereby he has been restrained from entering the said shop on the basis of an allegedly illegal and vague notice/panchnama. It is contended that no prior notice was served upon the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him before the sealing action was taken. The petitioner submits that the manner in which the entire exercise has been carried out is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is further contended that, by reason of such action, the reputation of the firm has been adversely affected. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions from this Hon'ble Court by issuance of a writ of mandamus. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant petition has been filed challenging the sealing of the petitioner's shop by the officials of the Municipal Corporation in an arbitrary and vague manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been restrained from entering the said shop on the basis of an illegal and vague notice/panchnama. Learned counsel submits that no prior notice was served upon the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him before the sealing action was taken. It is further submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by the Municipal Corporation officials is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and that, on account of such action, the reputation of the firm has been adversely affected. Learned 3 counsel, therefore, prays for appropriate directions to the respondents by issuance of a writ of mandamus. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, submits that the action taken by the Municipal Corporation was in accordance with law and was necessitated on account of the violations committed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the notice/panchnama was issued in accordance with the applicable provisions of law and that the sealing action was undertaken by the competent authority. Learned counsel, therefore, opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that no interference by this Hon'ble Court is warranted at this stage. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the concerned authorities have acted in accordance with the provisions of law and that the allegations made by the petitioner are disputed. It is further submitted that the respondents may be granted an opportunity to place the relevant records before this Hon'ble Court. Learned State Counsel, therefore, prays for time to obtain instructions and file an appropriate response. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the fact that the document dated 10.09.2026 neither bears the signature of any competent authority nor contains any indication as to its authenticity, no action can be permitted to be 4 taken on the basis of such document. Consequently, any action founded upon the purported corroborative document, namely, the Panchnama dated 10.09.2026, cannot be permitted to continue. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.09.2026, purportedly passed by the concerned authority, is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after affording due notice and an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saurabh