Facts of the Case

Spicey Junction Family Dhaba, run by its proprietor Gajanand Yadav for 15-20 years at a location in Raipur, held registrations under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, along with Udyam and GST registrations and a permanent electricity connection. This is fundamentally a municipal encroachment/demolition dispute, not a GST matter — the GST registration was cited by the petitioner only as evidence of the legitimacy of the business, not as the subject of the case. The Zone Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, issued a notice dated 27.03.2026 directing removal of the alleged encroachment within 24 hours, without any prior show cause notice or hearing.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 24-hour demolition notice, issued without a show cause notice or hearing, violated principles of natural justice.
  2. Whether the petitioner's long-standing possession and statutory registrations created a legitimate expectation of regularisation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The notice was issued in breach of natural justice (audi alteram partem), without any opportunity of hearing.
  • Long-standing possession, official registrations (including GST), and payment of taxes created a legitimate expectation against summary dispossession.
  • The action violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Not separately elaborated in the excerpted order — the matter was disposed of by directing recourse to the statutory remedy under the Municipal Corporation Act.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy was available under Section 403 of the Municipal Corporation Act, and declined to examine the matter on merits in writ jurisdiction.
  • Recognising that the notice involved demolition, the Court granted limited interim protection, directing the petitioner to approach the Municipal Corporation with a representation by 04.05.2026.
  • Respondents were directed not to take coercive steps pursuant to the impugned notice until the competent authority decided the representation after hearing the petitioner.

Important Clarification

This is an alternate-remedy disposal, not a decision on the legality of the demolition notice itself, and it has no connection to GST law — the petitioner's GST registration was mentioned only to show the business was formally recognised, nothing more. The practical benefit for the petitioner is the interim protection against coercive action while the Municipal Corporation considers the representation.

Sections Involved

  • Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, Section 403
  • Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 226

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the challenge to the demolition notice was relegated to the statutory remedy, with interim protection granted to the petitioner in the interim.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
  • Case Number: WPC No. 1840 of 2026
  • Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:18693
  • Coram: Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
  • Date of Order: 23.04.2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.