Order passed by Commissioner on representation against Mayor-in-Council resolution is without jurisdiction and requires fresh consideration.

The petitioners, claiming possession of subject land for over 45 years [p. 3], challenged a resolution dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Mayor-in-Council

Previously, in W.P.(C) No. 5044 of 2025, the High Court directed the petitioners to submit a representation to the "competent authority" for consideration

While the petitioners submitted their representation on 30.09.2025, the matter was decided and rejected by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, via order dated 03.11.2025, rather than being placed before the Mayor-in-Council

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to set aside the Commissioner’s order and the original 2023 resolution

1. Whether the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, had the jurisdiction to decide a representation against a resolution passed by the Mayor-in-Council

2. Whether the representation submitted pursuant to the Court's earlier directions ought to have been decided by the Mayor-in-Council as the competent authority

The Court applied the principle of administrative competence and jurisdictional propriety, asserting that when an initial decision (allotment of land) is taken by a specific collective body (the Mayor-in-Council), a subsequent representation regarding that decision must be adjudicated by that same competent authority

The Court emphasized the requirement for authorities to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" following the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing

The Court observed that the subject matter involved a resolution originally passed by the Mayor-in-Council

It reasoned that since the High Court’s previous order in W.P.(C) No. 5044 of 2025 directed consideration by the "competent authority," the Commissioner acted without proper jurisdiction by deciding the matter at his own level

The Court found that because the Mayor-in-Council was the body that passed the initial resolution being contested, it remained the only appropriate forum to reconsider the petitioners' grievances

The Commissioner’s order was thus structurally flawed as it bypassed the deliberative authority of the Council

The High Court allowed the petitions in part and set aside the Commissioner’s order dated 03.11.2025. The Court directed that the petitioners' representation be placed before the Mayor-in-Council, which must decide the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 45 days after providing an opportunity for a hearing. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the petitioners' claim to the land.