Unsafe-premises evictions require consideration of occupants’ representations and reasonable time for relocation.

The petitioner, proprietor of Shop No. 37 at Pt. Ravishankar Stadium, Durg, challenged a pre-eviction notice dated 25 June 2026 directing him to vacate.

The notice relied on a Public Works Department report that the stadium premises and shops were dilapidated and unsafe.

The petitioner, who had occupied the shop and paid rent for about 20 years, sought quashing of the notice and rehabilitation, alleging that eviction without alternative arrangements would affect his livelihood.

The parties submitted that the dispute was covered by the High Court’s common order dated 23 July 2026 in WPC No. 3730 of 2026 and connected matters.

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the pre-eviction notice should be decided in accordance with the directions issued in the earlier common order concerning the same notice and premises.

Whether the petitioner should receive time and consideration of his request for alternative arrangements before coercive eviction.

Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution protect the right to carry on a profession or business and the right to livelihood, subject to lawful restrictions, including reasonable restrictions in the general public interest under Article 19(6).

Occupants have no vested or indefeasible right to remain in premises indefinitely; however, public authorities must act fairly, reasonably and non-arbitrarily when eviction affects livelihood.

The Court applied its common order dated 23 July 2026 in WPC No. 3730 of 2026 and connected matters, which required consideration of occupants’ representations, an opportunity of hearing, and a four-month period without coercive eviction.

The Court found that the present petition concerned the same pre-eviction notice, authority and PWD safety report as the earlier proceedings, and that no distinguishing feature had been shown.

It therefore applied the earlier order’s balance between public safety and the occupants’ need for time to make alternative arrangements, rather than reconsidering the merits of the notice.

The competent respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s representations for alternative arrangements, or pass a reasoned order after hearing him, within a reasonable period, and to consider reasonable assistance in shifting his business.

No coercive eviction action may be taken for four months from the order; during that period, the petitioner may continue operating at his own risk and cost, with responsibility for any mishap resting solely on him.

After four months, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.