Spicey Junction Family Dhaba vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Spicey Junction Family Dhaba, operated by Gajanand Yadav, has been in possession of a food establishment for 15-20 years and possesses various registrations including GST. Respondent No. 3, the Zone Commissioner of Municipal Corporation Raipur, issued a notice on March 27, 2026, directing the removal of alleged encroachment within 24 hours, without prior show cause notice or hearing. The petitioner contends this action violates principles of natural justice and constitutional rights to livelihood. The Municipal Corporation argues the notice is lawful and an alternative remedy exists under Section 403 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The State supports the Corporation's stance, asserting the petitioner occupies government land without legal right and that registrations do not confer ownership.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's grievance regarding the impugned notice, which pertains to the removal of alleged encroachment, could be addressed through an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under Section 403 of the Municipal Corporation Act, the Court would not entertain the writ petition on merits due to the availability of this remedy. However, considering the potential demolition of the petitioner's premises, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant limited protection. The petitioner was directed to approach the competent authority by May 4, 2026, to file an appropriate application/representation. Until such application is filed and orders are passed, the respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps pursuant to the impugned notice. The competent authority was directed to decide the application expeditiously, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing. The Court did not decide on the merits of the encroachment claim or the petitioner's right to regularization or rehabilitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 27.03.2026, directing removal of alleged encroachment within 24 hours without a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argues it is, citing violation of due process and legitimate expectation. The respondents deny this, stating the action is in public interest and lawful. 2. Whether an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 403 of the Municipal Corporation Act, rendering the writ petition not maintainable? The respondents contend it is, while the petitioner implicitly argues against its efficacy by approaching the High Court.