The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that municipal authorities cannot enforce closure or sealing of a long-standing business absent compliance with statutory requirements for designated trading spaces. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural legitimacy under municipal law is non-negotiable, even where public health or zoning concerns are invoked.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner operates the Hindustan Chicken Center, a poultry shop in Gaurela district that has been functioning for over two decades. On 3 November 2025, the Chief Municipal Officer issued a notice (Annexure-P/2) directing the closure of the shop, alleging violations of Sections 246, 264, 283 and 284 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. A second notice (Annexure-P/1) followed on 12 December 2025, ordering the sealing of the premises. The petitioner challenged both notices, asserting that no specific plot or location had ever been assigned to him under Section 264 of the Act, rendering the enforcement actions legally unsustainable.
Procedural History
- 2003 onwards: Petitioner operates poultry shop at same location without formal objection
- 3 November 2025: First notice issued for closure under Sections 246, 264, 283, 284 of the Act
- 12 December 2025: Second notice issued for sealing of shop
- January 2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 before Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned notices and a declaration that the municipal authorities cannot proceed against his business without assigning a designated place under Section 264 of the Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 264 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 permits municipal authorities to issue closure or sealing notices against a business operating in the absence of a formally assigned location.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 264 mandates the Municipal Council to designate specific places for trade, and failure to do so renders any enforcement action arbitrary and violative of natural justice. He relied on the principle that the state cannot impose obligations without providing the means to comply. The long-standing operation of the shop without prior objection further supported the claim of legitimate expectation.
For the Respondent
Respondent No. 3, the Chief Municipal Officer, did not dispute the fact that no specific place had been assigned to the petitioner. No counter-argument was advanced to justify the notices on substantive grounds, effectively conceding the procedural defect.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the mandatory language of Section 264 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, which requires municipal councils to designate specific places for carrying on trade or business. The Court held that the absence of such designation creates a legal vacuum: the authority cannot penalize a citizen for operating outside a designated space if no such space was ever provided.
"Since no specific place has been assigned by the Municipal Council Gaurela, the impugned notices... are not sustainable."
The Court emphasized that procedural fairness under administrative law requires the state to provide the framework before enforcing compliance. The petitioner’s two-decade-long operation without formal assignment further reinforced the legitimacy of his continued use of the premises. The Court rejected the notion that mere alleged violations of Sections 246, 283, or 284 could justify sealing without first fulfilling the precondition under Section 264.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed both impugned notices dated 3 November 2025 and 12 December 2025. It held that municipal authorities cannot enforce closure or sealing without first assigning a designated place under Section 264. However, the Court preserved the authority’s right to assign a location prospectively and take lawful action thereafter.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Designated Place Is a Prerequisite for Enforcement
- Practitioners must challenge municipal closure notices where no designated trading area has been notified
- The burden shifts to the authority to prove compliance with Section 264 before initiating action
- Long-standing operation without objection strengthens the claim of legitimate expectation
Procedural Compliance Overrides Alleged Substantive Violations
- Alleged breaches of Sections 246, 283, or 284 cannot be invoked to justify sealing if Section 264 remains unfulfilled
- Courts will not permit authorities to use ancillary provisions to circumvent mandatory procedural safeguards
- Any enforcement action must follow the statutory sequence: assign → notify → enforce
Municipalities Must Proactively Designate Spaces
- Municipal councils are under a continuing duty to identify and notify designated zones
- Failure to do so constitutes administrative inaction, not merely procedural delay
- Petitioners may now seek mandatory injunctions compelling assignment of space, not just quashing of notices
