1 2025:CGHC:22910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2483 of 2024 1 - Western Fe Alloys Ltd. Through Its Director, Pujah S. Jhunjhunwala, W/o Mukund Jhunjhunwala, Aged About 41 Years, Registered Address- 207, Central Plaza, 2/6 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata (W.B.) 700020 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Commerce And Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, 1st Floor, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief General Manager (Land Allotment) Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Branch Office Tifra, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief General Manager District Trade And Industries Center, New Composite Building, First Floor, Collectorate Building, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Director Of State Industries Udyog Bhawan, Saktidham Mandir Shyam Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Ravindra Sharma, Shri Nikhil Kumar Singh and Shri Anshik Singh Hora, Advocates For Respondents 1,4 & 5/State For Respondent No.2 & 3 : : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Shri Trivikram Nayak, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/06/2025 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 10.1. it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus quashing the order dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 & 4. 10.2. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P/6) and project report submitted by the petitioner afresh. 10.3. it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to maintain status quo with respect to the taking over the possession of the allotted land from the petitioner and fresh allotment. 10.4. it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has filed this petition WPC No. 2187 of 2023 and this Court has passed the order dated 20.10.2023 which reads as under: 3 “7. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case when the petitioner who was initially the allottee, however, due to some shortcomings in the project submitted, the land allotted to petitioner was cancelled, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider the proposal of change of business submitted by the petitioner afresh and the allotment of land sympathetically keeping in mind that the father of petitioner was allotted the land in the year 1997-98 and the last order for cancellation is only on 13.04.2023. Respondents No.2 to 4 shall consider the claim of petitioner without being prejudice to the earlier instance which is available in the record. The decision shall be taken by respondents No. 2 to 4 afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order. 8. Till decision is taken status quo with respect to the land, subject matter of the fresh proposal, allotted to the father of the petitioner, shall be maintained by the parties.” 3. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.12.2023 before the respondents along with detailed project report on Aluminum Extrusion and Anodizing Unit having capacity of 8100 MT and an investment of over Rs. Six Crores is proposed however, after change of Government and oath of Hon’ble CM on 13.12.2023, the officers were not available and therefore the representation was received by the concerned clerk on 14.12.2023 and the petitioner was called on 19.12.2023 and receipt was given. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that his representation would be considered sympathetically by the respondent authorities and order 4 would be passed. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.12.2023 may be considered by the respondents authorities in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has disputed the fact that on 14.12.2023 the petitioner has made representation (Annexure P/6 and 7) however, he has no objection to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his representation may be considered by the authority concerned as per law. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that respondent No. 2 & 3 shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.12.2023 vide Annexure P/6 and P/7 and pass order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing in to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Meanwhile, status quo with respect to the land in question, subject matter of the fresh proposal shall be maintained by the parties, till the decision is taken. 8. With the above observation, the petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.13 12:30:00 +0530