1 2025:CGHC:29730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3341 of 2025 1 - Manharan Lal Chandrakar S/o Shri Muritram Chandrakar Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Bagharra, Tahsil- Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Head Copyist, Tahsil Office, Tahsil- Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Chandrakar, Advocate For State : Mrs. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to direct the respondent authorities particularly respondent no. 4 to provide certified copies of the entire order sheets of Case No. Unregistered/2023 captioned as “Manharan Lal Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh” (complete documents). The petitioner applied for the same on 22.05.2025 but despite the lapse of over 20 days and a follow up complaint to respondent no. 3 on 28.05.2025 no action has been taken. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 4 failure to provide the certified copies fo the requested documents within 15 2 days, despite the petitioner’s application dated 22.05.2025 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the principles of administrative law. The undue delay in providing the certified copies is causing significant prejudice to the petitioner who requires these documents to protect their legal rights and interest in the land bearing Khasra No. 785/1 and 770/1. The delay hampers the petitioner’s ability to pursue further legal remedies or actions concerning the said property. 3. Learned State counsel made no objection. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumspection of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of grievance in the writ petition that even after lapse of more than 20 days certified copies as requested by way of submitting application before the concerned respondent have not been supplied to petitioner and no such step has been taken in this regard, instead of keeping this writ petition pending seeking reply from the respondents, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing respondent no. 4 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to supply the certified copies as requested by the petitioner pursuant to application dated 22.05.2025 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to if not already given. Petitioner may also enclosed copy of writ petition along with the documents for consideration of the respondents authorities. 6. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza