-1- 2025:CGHC:12020 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2089 of 2019 Chhotelal S/o Manglu Mahilange Aged About 51 Years R/o Mother Teresa Ward, Majhwapara, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Commissioner Vikas Bhawan, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2- Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Vikas Bhawan, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Collector District – Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) With WPC No. 1609 of 2020 Laxmendra Jogi S/o Surendra Jogi Aged About 25 Years R/o Mother Teresa Ward, Majhwapara, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Municipal Commissioner Vikas Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation Through Municipal Commissioner Vikas Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 3 – Collector, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Saurabh Shukla, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.03.2025 1) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the limitation to file a contempt petition was expired, therefore, these writ petitions have been filed, seeking relief(s) similar which were sought in earlier writ petition (WPC/2212/2016), whereby a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. 2) From perusal of the documents, it appears that on account of non-compliance with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed a contempt petition (CONT/93/2017), wherein the respondent No.2/ Municipal Corporation gave an undertaking to redress the grievance of the petitioner. However, no action was taken. Consequently, the present writ petitions have been filed. 3) Considering the fact that to get benefit of limitation, the writ petition is not maintainable, as in the earlier round of litigation, a direction was issued to the concerned authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner, but when the authorities failed to comply with the order passed by this Court in WPC -3- No.2212 of 2016, the petitioner filed a contempt petition (CONT/93/2017), which was disposed of on an undertaking given by the Municipal Corporation. However, as the grievance of the petitioner remained unaddressed, the present writ petitions have been filed, seeking relief similar as sought in an earlier writ petition (WPC/2212/2016). 4) Accordingly, these writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM