1 2026:CGHC:4509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 80 of 2026 Ruchi Jain W/o Shri Gautam Jain Aged About 43 Years R/o Andruz Ward Daupara Mungeli, Mungeli, Dist- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Mungeli District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Mungeli Mungeli District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 5 - Najul Officer Mungeli Dist- Mungeli Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Purvi Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 27-1-2026 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition (civil) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.01.28 17:04:26 +0530 2 “0.1 Quash the impugned notice dated 05.01.2026 to the petitioner (Annexure P/1), and the action to be taken by the respondent herein whereby the petitioner has been directed to evacuate the premises or would be done forcefully. 0.2 Direct the respondents not to proceed further, pursuant to issuance of the impugned notice dated 05.01.2026 to the petitioner (Annexure P/1), and the action to be taken by the respondent. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court direct the respondent authority to supply the copy of inspection and complaint received against the petitioner and any other document available before the office of respondent no. 4 that petitioner constructed more than permission granted to her and also direct the respondent to conduct demarcation in front of the petitioner over the land owned by the petitioner. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. After arguing for some times, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file appropriate petition before appropriate forum. 3. Prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 4. In view of above submission, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. 5. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak