Dismissed¶31

Sewaram Panjwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jul 2025WPC/1400/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 1400 of 2023 (decided 08/07/2025, Arvind Kumar Verma, J.); Sewaram Panjwani v. State of Chhattisgarh and others; illegal construction of square/chowk opposite grocery shop in Mungeli; obstruction to customer approach; electric pole and drainage; complaint before Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Mungeli; representation/complaint/objection dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P/5) before Collector, Mungeli; respondents 6 & 7 Gyanchand and Mohan Bhojwani; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; writ refused; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer for a direction to the respondent authorities to stop the construction of the square is not tenable. ¶31

Sewaram Panjwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:31379

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1400 of 2023

¶6

1 - Sewaram Panjwani S/o Shri Daulatram Panjwani Aged About 57 Years R/o Ram Gopal Tiwari Ward, Pull Para Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bahwan, Block - D, 4th Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Collector Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council / Municipality, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Sub - Divisional Officer District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Tehsildar District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Gyanchand Bhojwani S/o Late Shri Tillumal Bhojwani Residing At, Sindhi Colony Chowk, Raipur Road, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2025.07.10 11:27:29 +0530

¶16

¶17

7 - Mohan Bhojwani S/o Late Shri Tillumal Bhojwani Residing At, Sindhi Colony Chowk, Raipur Road, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ashish Mittal, Advcoate on behalf of Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Resps. 1, 2, 4 & 5/State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. GA For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate

¶20

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

08/07/2025

¶23

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has sought for the following reliefs:

¶24

10.1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities to stop the illegal construction of the chowk and consequently, direct the respondent authorities to demolish the said illegal construction, in the interest of justice.

¶25

10.2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation/complaint/objection dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P/5) submitted by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶26

10.3. Any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.”

¶27

Facts of the case are that the petitioner is having a grocery shop and is running the same since 30 years. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondents No. 6 & 7 are illegally constructing a square opposite to his grocery shop which may be obstruction to his shop

¶28

¶29

causing difficulty in approaching by the customers. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had made a complaint before the respondent No.3/Chief Municipal Officer to stop the illegal construction. He submits that due to the existing electric pole and drainage, there is already a difficulty for proper approach, hence the present petition filed by the petitioner.

¶30

Learned State counsel submits that the State is a formal party and relief sought by the petitioner is against the respondent No.3/Municipal Council, Mungeli and respondents No. 6 & 7. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are not tenable and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is contended that from the photograph which has been annexed with the petition shows that there is proper approach available to his shop and the square has already been constructed.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to stop the construction of square, which is not tenable. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, I find no strong case for issuance of Writ as such has been made out. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶34

Judge

Sewaram Panjwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sewaram Panjwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunti Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Sukhwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hem Kumar Sidar Vs Axis Bank Limited

Chandrakant Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh