1 / 4 2025:CGHC:23998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2855 of 2025 Aniruddha Kumar Sahu S/o Khorbahara Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Newsa, Tahsil - Beltara, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Secretary of Gram Panchayat Newsa Tahsil - Beltara, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Vasudev Suryavanshi (Contractor) R/o Village - Gopalpur, P.S. And Tahsil - Seepat, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 13/06/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.06.17 12:26:29 +0530 2 / 4 1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner for seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner for taking appropriate legal action against Respondent No.6 and to recover the amount of Rs.80,000/- from the Respondent No.6. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner for taking appropriate legal action and to recover the amount of Rs.80,000/- against the private respondent no.6 with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondent no.6 to complete the construction of house of the petitioner according to Govt. scheme within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 3. The brief facts of this case, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner had applied for construction of his house under the Government P.M. Scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, in which the respondent authorities had sanctioned an amount of Rs.80,000/- in two installments (Rs.35000/- & Rs.45000/-) for construction of the house under the aforesaid scheme in the year 2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that the private Respondent No.6 was the contractor to construct the house as per the said scheme ane he has only constructed column of the house from first 3 / 4 installment of Rs.35000/- and withdrawn the second installment amount of Rs.45000/- without completing the house of the petitioner and a report in this regard has already been registered wherein the police has given the report of non cognizable offence. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has approached the private respondent No.6 for completing the construction work of his house from the fund allotted under the government scheme but the respondent No.6 has refused to complete the house and even has not returned the amount of the petitioner. He would next contend that the petitioner has moved several complaints against Respondent No.6, however, the concerned authorities have not taken any action against the private respondent. It is therefore, prayed that the instant petition may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that they have only allotted the fund to the petitioner and have not engaged any contractor and the private Respondent No.6 Contractor has been engaged by the petitioner himself, therefore the State authorities are not liable to take any action against Respondent No.6. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. From perusal of the documents it is crystal clear that the State authorities have only sanctioned amount in favour of the petitioner 4 / 4 under the Government scheme and the Contractor was engaged by the petitioner himself, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu