1 2025:CGHC:21218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2384 of 2025 1 - Gayatri Ventures A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At Kadambari Nagar, Durg, District Durg (Cg), Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Ayush Mittal, Aged About 32 Years, S/o Ram Niwas Mittal, R/o Mittal Niwas, H.No. 1, Kadambari Nagar, Dhamdha Road, Durg ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Dist. Raipur (Cg). 2 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Basin, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (Cg). 3 - Superintending Engineer Water Resources Department, Shivnath Circle, District Durg (Cg). 4 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Bemetara, District Bemetara (Cg). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Garry Mukhopadhayay, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/05/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. This Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to Call for entire records pertaining to the subject matter. ii. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to take a decision in the case of the Petitioner keeping in mind the circular dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-3) as well as the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in in the case of M/s DA Enterprises VS State, WPT 94/2020 (Annexure P-5). iii. Cost of this petition be awarded to the petitioners. iv. Any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions and writ/writs as may be deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that the matter in dispute has been recommended by various authorities and now it is pending for consideration before the Secretary/respondent No.1. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, prays that the Secretary/respondent No.1 may be directed to decide the matter in dispute, to which learned counsel for the State has no objection. He is also of the considered view that since the matter is pending for consideration before respondent No.1, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to decide the same within some stipulated period. 4. In view of the foregoing, the Secretary/respondent No.1 is directed to decide the matter in dispute within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat