Mandamus to Decide Pending Administrative Representation Concerning Alleged Illegal Demolition Within Prescribed Timeframe.

The petitioners, residents of New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, approached the High Court challenging the demolition of a brick wall, which they claimed was over 50 years old.

They alleged that Respondents No. 11 and 12, in connivance with Municipal Corporation officials, illegally demolished the wall to create an additional access point to their property.

The petitioners had previously submitted an application (Annexure P-4) dated 17-02-2026 to the Municipal Corporation seeking redressal, which remained pending.

Conversely, the Municipal Corporation (Respondents No. 6 and 8) contended that the wall was an illegal encroachment on a public road and was demolished following the service of due notice.

1. Whether the demolition of the subject brick wall by the Municipal Corporation was in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the statutory provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act.

2. Whether the Court should direct the Respondent Authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioners regarding the legality of the demolition.

The Court's decision was governed by the principles of Administrative Law and Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court primarily applied the principle of "Alternative Remedy/Administrative Exhaustion" by directing the competent authority (the Commissioner) to exercise its statutory discretion to resolve the dispute.

Statutory obligation of municipal authorities to adjudicate representations filed by citizens concerning municipal actions under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act and the C.G. Land Revenue Code.

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the demolition's legality or the conflicting claims regarding whether the wall stood on private land or a public road.

Instead, it observed that the petitioners had already invoked an administrative remedy by filing an application (Annexure P-4) with the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. Given that this application was still pending, the Court found it appropriate to compel the administrative authority to perform its duty.

The Court noted the submissions of the Municipal Corporation that they were willing to decide the application in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court linked the petitioners' grievance to the pending administrative process, ensuring procedural due process without bypassing the fact-finding role of the Municipal Commissioner.

The Court directed Respondent No. 6 (Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur) to decide the petitioners’ application dated 17-02-2026 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with the law... preferably within a period of 60 days from the receipt of the order.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.