Municipal authorities must expeditiously decide complaints regarding illegal encroachment and obstruction of public drainage.

The petitioner, a resident of Parijaat Extension, Bilaspur, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

She alleged that Respondents No. 5 to 8 illegally encroached upon a public drainage in front of her house by constructing a platform and tank, thereby obstructing water flow

The petitioner further claimed that the maintenance of stray dogs at the site created unhygienic conditions and health hazards

Despite submitting a formal complaint to the Municipal Corporation on 02.02.2026, no action was taken

Consequently, the petitioner sought a direction for the authorities to decide her pending representation

1. Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to direct the municipal authorities to consider and decide upon a pending representation regarding illegal encroachment and public nuisance

The court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

The court applied the principle of administrative responsiveness, which requires statutory authorities—such as the Municipal Corporation under the relevant municipal laws—to consider and dispose of grievances/complaints through reasoned and speaking orders within a reasonable timeframe

The court maintained judicial restraint by not adjudicating on the merits of the encroachment while ensuring the petitioner's right to have her application heard

The court observed that the core of the petitioner’s grievance was the administrative inaction regarding her complaint dated 02.02.2026

During the hearing, the State and the Municipal Corporation (Respondents No. 3 and 4) conceded that they would examine the grievance and take appropriate steps in accordance with the law

The court noted that it was not necessary to evaluate the factual truth of the encroachment or nuisance at this stage

Instead, the court focused on the procedural remedy, reasoning that a time-bound direction to the Commissioner and Zone Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to pass a "reasoned and speaking order" would effectively redress the petitioner's immediate legal grievance of non-consideration

The court directed Respondent No. 3 (Commissioner) and Respondent No. 4 (Zone Commissioner) of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, to consider and decide the petitioner’s application dated 02.02.2026 in accordance with the law

The court ordered that this exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order