2026:CGHC:12892 NAFR AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 1037 of 2026 c=IN Date: 2026.03.20 10:51:15 +0530 Rajesh Nishad S/o Rajendra Nishad Aged About 38 Years Presently Running A Shop At Sanjay Complex Raigarh R/o Village Kaidi Muda, Ward No. 30 Raigarh Tahsil Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner.

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration R.N. S4-10, Maha Nadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar-

Chhattisgarh 492002

2. The Collector Raigarh Collectorate Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)

3. The Municipal Corporation Raigarh Through The Commissioner Thana City Kotwali Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Respondents.

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

For Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Malaviya, Advocate.

For Res No.1 & 2 : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG.

For Res No.3 : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Adv with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Adv.

( Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )

Order on Board

18/03/2026

1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the followings reliefs:-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders i.e. Annexure P/1.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to suitably direct the respondents to address/resolved the grievances of the petitioner as raise in response dated 19.12.2025 Annexure-P/2.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the petitioner to consider his case as other similarly situated persons case will be considered as per order passed on

16.03.2021 in WPC No.1490/2021 (Vide Annex. P-5)

10.4 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner operates a fruit and vegetable shop under the name "Adarsh Fruit Company," located at Sanjay Complex, inside Sabji Mandir, Raipur. He holds a registered license for the business, which was recently renewed by the competent authority on October 1, 2025 (Annexure-P/4). However, Respondent No. 3 (Municipal Corporation Raigarh) issued an eviction notice on 11.11.2025 (Annexure- P/1). The notice alleges that the petitioner’s shade is constructed in front of a public toilet, which causes inconvenience to the public particularly women in going to the said facility. The petitioner replied to said notice, stating that the shop does not hinder access to the toilet and that his sole source of income is depend on the said shop, however, his grievance was not considered.

3. Counsel further submits that a similarly situated petitioner namely, Kailash Jigyashi, previously filed a writ petition (WPC No1490/2021) and was granted relief on 16.03.2021. In that case, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation Raigarh submitted an affidavit on 9.12 2020, assuring that such vendors would be resettled either at their existing location or an appropriate alternative place. Counsel prays that since this case is also covered by that judgment the present petition be disposed of under the similar terms.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 3, the main contesting party, has no objection if the present petition is disposed of in terms of WPC No.

1490/2021 and WPC No. 678/2013.

5. A perusal of the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in WPC No. 1490/2021 reveals that the petitioner therein was an occupant of Sanjay Complex operating a betel shop. The Co-ordinate Bench disposed of that writ petition, holding that the petitioner (Kailash) shall be governed by the terms set forth in the judgment dated 27.01.2021 passed in WPC No. 678/2013 and shall comply with the concerned requisition.

6. Upon a perusal of the present case and considering the submissions made counsel for the parties, it appears that the current matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned cases. Here, it would be appropriate to quote the