Back
Grants Four Month Reprieve To Shopkeepers Facing Eviction In Durg Stadium
In a significant order addressing the intersection of public safety and constitutional rights, the at Bilaspur has granted a four-month reprieve to shopkeepers facing eviction from the Ravishankar Stadium complex in Durg. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad directed state authorities to reconsider rehabilitation pleas while ensuring no coercive steps are taken against the occupants.
Balancing Hazard and Livelihood
The dispute arose when the issued eviction notices on , citing a report from the that declared the stadium’s commercial shops structurally unsafe. The petitioners—long-term shopkeepers who have operated in the complex for over two decades—challenged these notices, arguing that the demolition was a pretext to facilitate the handing over of the premises to the () without a rehabilitation policy.
Arguments from the Bar
Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate argued that the eviction violated . She contended that the authorities failed to follow , acting without a formal resettlement scheme while the petitioners, mostly small business owners, faced the sudden loss of their primary source of income during the challenging rainy season.
Conversely, the State argued that the petitioners were not protected by the , and that the notice period was contractually compliant. The state emphasized that the dilapidated state of the building created an urgent, overriding public safety concern that necessitated swift action.
Constitutional Safeguards and Judicial Analysis
The High Court underscored that while the State has an obligation to maintain public safety, it must act as a welfare entity that upholds constitutional values. The court noted:
"While ensuring public safety by removing occupants from an unsafe structure is undoubtedly a legitimate objective, the authorities cannot ignore the consequences that such action may have upon the livelihood of the petitioners."
Key Observations
-
" guarantees to every citizen the to practise any profession... subject to imposed in the interest of the general public."
-
"The has also been recognized as an integral facet of the guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
-
"The State, being a , is expected to balance public interest with the legitimate concerns of citizens whose livelihood is likely to be affected by administrative action."
The Court’s Directive
The Court ultimately disposed of the petitions by directing the Secretary of the to evaluate all representations submitted by the shopkeepers regarding relocation. The order mandates a four-month moratorium on any coercive eviction proceedings. During this period, the petitioners are permitted to continue their business at their own risk, with an explicit disclaimer that the State bears no liability for any incidents resulting from the structural condition of the stadium. This measured approach ensures that while safety remains paramount, the displaced citizens are provided a reasonable window to secure their future livelihood.
