1 2025:CGHC:13040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2513 of 2019 1 - Ram Sudin Sahu S/o Ganpat Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Manipur (Mathpara) Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ram Vilas Manikpuri S/o Chamaru Aged About 50 Years Occupation Profession, Revenue Inspector In Revenue Department, Ramanujnagar, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Sarguja, District Ambikapur Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ram Sudin Sahu, Petitioner in Person For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record pertaining to petitioner's case. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action against the respondent no. 3, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Heard on admission. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in sum and substance is that respondent No. 3, who is a Government Servant, performed marriage with three ladies and the respondent authorities have not taken any action on his representations. 4. The petitioner in person would argue that one of the wives of respondent No. 3 namely, Nan Bai was suffering from paralysis but respondent No. 3 failed to provide her proper medical treatment. He would next submit that according to civil services rules, respondent No. 3 is not suitable for the government job. He would contend that various complaints were made by the petitioner before the State authorities but no action has been taken so far. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Prajapati, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by the petitioner. He would submit that on 08.01.2019, the representation of the petitioner was decided by the Deputy Collector, Surguja. He would further submit that the petitioner has not challenged that order. He would contend that a complaint case was registered against respondent No. 3 for the commission of an offence publishable under Sections 495, 294 read with Section 506-B of the IPC and it was dismissed by the learned Criminal Court. He would also submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. The petitioner has not filed this petition for the issuance of a writ of 3 quo-warranto. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No. 2 to take appropriate action against respondent No. 3, who has married three ladies. The petitioner has not sought any relief for himself. The petitioner failed to establish his locus to file this petition. 8. On a complaint of the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted and a decision was taken by the Deputy Collector, Surguja and it was duly communicated vide letter dated 08.01.2019 but the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. 9. Further, a complaint case was filed by the first wife of respondent No. 3 namely, Nan Bai for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 495, 294 read with Section 506-B of the IPC and it was dismissed by the learned Criminal Court. 10.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha