1 2026:CGHC:16742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1502 of 2021 Ashish Kumar Arora S/o Late Pritam Kumar Aged About 39 Years R/o F-6, Friends Colony Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Raigarh Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State/respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, GA For Respondent No.2 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/04/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- 2 "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to quash the impugned notice dated 09.02.2021 (Annexue P/1) and further action thereof pursuant to notice dated 19.02.2021 be also declared as null and void. 10.2 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the identical matter has been decided by this Court in WPC No.2060 of 2021 and as such this writ petition may be disposed in the same line. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State-Respondent has not disputed this fact that identical petitions have been decided. 4. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation/respondent No.2 who is contesting respondent has also submitted that the petition can be disposed of in line of WPC No.2060 of 2021. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Further considering the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that there lies and alternative remedy, this Court has directed the concerned party to approach before respondent No.2 who is having authority to decide the dispute between the parties under Section 307(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. 3 6. Accordingly, the instant petition also disposed of in the same line and term. However, it is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case, in the earlier order also the matter has not been decided on merits as such the respondent No.2 is at liberty to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 7. In view of the observations made herein above, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vasant