1 / 3 2025:CGHC:27613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3182 of 2025 Yogesh Kalash S/o Shri Ramkrishna Kalash Aged About 54 Years At Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh District Collector Raipur, C.G. 2 - District Collector Gariyaband, C.G. 3 - Superintendent of Police Gariyaband, C.G. 4 - Tehsildar Tikrapara Circle, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking a direction towards the Respondent No.1 for deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 17/01/2025 despite the lapse of 05 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had sold part of his property i.e. Hall No.S4, built-up area 1261.7 sq. ft. situated at second floor of a Multicomplex named RK Plaza, Ring Road No.1, ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.06.28 13:40:09 +0530 2 / 3 Ravindra Nath Tagore Ward No.51, Village Tikrapara, PCR 114, RIC 2, Tehsil and District Raipur to BNP Insurance and Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. through Chairman Raghvendra Singh Narwariya through a registered sale deed dated 25/09/2009. Thereafter the said Chairman was prosecuted under Section CGPDI Act and the property was forefeited in case No.31B/121 of the year 2021-22 by Respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the order passed by Respondent No.1 due to clerical error, the area of the aforementioned property was mistakenly mentioned 12617 sq. ft., instead of 1261.7 sq. ft. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the entire area of the complex is not 12617 sq. ft. and only clerical error on the part of respondent No.1 it has been written as 12617 sq. ft. and the petitioner has moved a representation for correction in the order dated 30/03/2022 on 17/01/2025, however, the respondent No.1 has forwarded the matter before the other authorities instead of deciding the representation. Therefore, he would pray that the Respondent No.1 may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner and make the necessary correction. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that they have no objection in deciding the representation of the petitioner, subject to verification of the entire documents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 3 / 3 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the Respondent No.1 shall decide the representation of the petitioner, subject to verification of the entire documents. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu