1 2025:CGHC:20974 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2295 of 2022 Ankit Dave S/o Shri Ajay Dave Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 57, Shrishti Garden, Ring Road No.1, Infront Airtel Office, Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Cultural Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretary, Sports And Youth Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Managing Director, CSIDC, Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - CEO, Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - CEO, Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.08 11:47:45 +0530 2 7 - S.P. (A.C.B.) Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 2, 3, & 7 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 7, Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/direction (s) against the respondent's authority by directing the respondents to take the cognizance upon the complaint of the petitioner and take the necessary step strictly in accordance with law, within the stipulated time period of one month. 3 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleases to direct the respondent ACB for taking the cognizance upon the complaints made by the petitioner and investigate the matter in according with law. 10.3 Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has filed preliminary objection with regard to maintainable of the petition and submits that the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner are not maintainable because there is no locus standi of the petitioner to file the present Petition because he himself admitted in the petition that there is no particular order, against which he has filed the present petition. He further submits that it is settled position in law that, a person asking for the interference of the Court in writ jurisdiction necessarily must have locus standi and observance of locus standi rule is a sine qua non at the very threshold of the matter to weed out vexatious and frivolous petitions. Furthermore, it is the duty of petitioner to prima facie satisfy as to what legal right does he have which in-fact was infringed and how any prejudice was caused to him, failing which the petition deserves to be dismissed. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671, Mani Subrat Jain v. State 4 of Haryana, (1977) 1 SCC 486, Shripal Bhati v. State of U.P., (2020) 12 SCC 87 and as well as the judgment dated 26.02.2021 passed in Writ Appeal No.2872 of 2013 by High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Syndicate Bank v. M/s Manyatha Residents Association and others to the contend that the petitioner has not only disclosed the relevant facts about himself but he has also failed to show as to how he is aggrieved. 4. It has been further contended that the petitioner stated that he had filed an RTI application and was asked to appear at the office of requisite authority to inspect the records on 26.11.2019, however, it is submitted that the petitioner had never visited the office of the requisite authority on 26.11.2010, as can be seen from the order of the requisite authority dated 27.11.2019. In fact a letter was issued dated 27.11.2019 to inspect the records on 05.12.2019, as such, the petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hands. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349. 5. It has been argued that the petition is also not maintainable on the ground that there has been inordinate delay in filing of the petition with unexplained delay. In this respect, he has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. 5 Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 to contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It has been further argued that the petitioner is seeking a criminal nature of relief under a writ petition (civil), which in itself impermissible as per settled law. 6. After arguing at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to avail alternative remedy by filing appropriate application before the appropriate forum. 7. Learned State counsel has no objection. 8. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh