1 2025:CGHC:16214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1761 of 2025 Babloo Ram S/o Shri Pukram Dhritlahre Aged About 33 Years Assistant Manager, Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Eramsahi, Registration No. 687, R/o Village - Gataura, Tahsil Masturi, Distt - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector/ Arbitrator Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Federation Limited, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Assistant Registrar Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Nodal Officer/ Branch Manager District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Branch Masturi, Distt - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 8 - Dy. Commissioner Cooperative/ Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society Bilaspur, Distt - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.09 09:58:15 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 4 : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Seema Verma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent-State, Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 4 and Ms. Seema Verma, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 2 The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 22.11.2024 (Ann. P/6) issued by the res. no.8 and impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner, Division Bilaspur (Annexure P/8) and direct the 3 respondent authorities to not take any coercive action/steps against the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondent authorities to not take any coercive action against the petitioner till deciding the appeal which is pending before the Learned Commissioner, Division Bilaspur, as per clause 14 of the try party agreement. 10.4 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 while pointing out that the application for grant of interim relief has been dismissed without assigning any rhyme and reason. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the arguments raised by the present petitioner before the Commissioner, Bilaspur is not reasonable and as such the application is dismissed. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, I have failed to understand that the said 4 order dated 16.01.2025 has been passed by the concerned Commissioner as well as other authorities as the petitioner has filed application for grant of stay before concerned Commissioner and other authorities, it is incumbent upon them to pass appropriate order. However, in this case, order has been passed without giving any plausible reason, the application of the petitioner has been dismissed. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter though neither the appeal memo nor the application for stay has been filed by the petitioner, however, in the interest of justice, the concerned Commissioner i.e. Commissioner Bilaspur is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner while passing appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6 Till the decision of the application filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 7 With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh