1 2025:CGHC:30073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 150 of 2016 1. Payarelal Kurre S/o Kolhuram, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Birra, P.S. Birra, Up- Tah. Bamhanidih, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Tahsildar, Tah. Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. Nayab Tahsildar, Up- Tah. Bamhanidih, Tah Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4. Sahas Ram, S/o Vedram, R/o Vill Ameradih, Tah. Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Section 226 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 15.07.2024 MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.09.30 16:15:06 +0530 2 passed by the Naib Tehsildar Bamhanidih, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Revenue Case No. 989/B-121/2013-14 by which the application filed by the respondent No. 4 for recalling its order and recorded its finding that the respondent No. 4 is a resident of village – Birra. 2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the respondent No. 4 moved an application before the Naib Tehsildar Bamhanidih on 02.04.2014 claiming himself to be resident of village Birra though he is reside of Amariyadih as he has applied for LPG distribution agency under Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distribution Scheme for resident of village Birra. Accordingly, issued a certificate in favour of respondent No. 4 declaring him resident of village Birra. 3. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the same on 02.04.2014 which was allowed vide order dated 06.06.2014. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 moved an application for recalling of the order alongwith he submitted documents pertaining to Rin Pustika, Ration Card and PAN Card, the said application was allowed on 15.07.2014 and he has been declared the resident of village Birra. This order has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no power has been conferred upon the Tehsildar to recall his own order and it has committed procedural irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned order. Thus he would pray for allowing the writ petition and would pray for quashing of the order dated 15.07.2014. 3 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 would submit that the Tehsildar after considering the material placed before it, has recalled the order which cannot found faulty. He would further submit that in view of the residential certificate granted in favour of the petitioner he is running LPG Gas agency and earning to livelihood, therefore, he would submit that if the impugned order is quashed not only respondent No. 4, but his family who are dependent in the said agency will be in difficult situation and their livelihood would be adversely affected. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the State Government has issued various directions for issuance of residential certificate which is a administrative function not the quasi-judicial function, as such, the submission made by the petitioner that there is no power to recall its order has been prescribed, therefore, the authority cannot recall its own order deserves to be rejected accordingly, it is rejected. The Tehsildar after considering the subsequent documents which through the light on issues has passed the impugned order and the petitioner has not raised any doubt or question the authenticity of these documents, therefore, also the impugned order is not liable to be interfered by this Court. 7. There is another reason for not interfering in the impugned order by this Court is that after 2016 more than 8 years have already been lapsed and the respondent No. 4 in view of the residential certificate is running the Gas Agency and maintaining his family, therefore, if any adverse order has been passed after lapse of 8 years, it will amounting to unsettle the things which has already 4 been settled. 8. Keeping this aspect of the circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its extra ordinary power by issuing writ of mandamus therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed accordingly, it is dismissed. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not touch merit of contention made by either of the parties and all the contentions raised in this petition are left open and will be decided in accordance with law in appropriate case. 10. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish