1 2025:CGHC:32206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3438 of 2025 1 - Deepak Mourya S/o Shri Dhanraj Mourya Aged About 36 Years R/o Beside Durganagar, Lingiyadeeh, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur Tahsil And District -Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following 2 reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to issued appropriate writ/order/direction to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) as early as possible, in the larger interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide any place in the scheme of Rehabilitation Policy in lieu of shop of petitioner within stipulated time period. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is continuously meeting the authorities and told them about his grievance, but no fruitful answer is given by the respondent authorities. They are not informing the petitioner about the reason for delay causing to provide a place to the petitioner for his business. The petitioner has made all his efforts but the respondent authorities remained silent. He therefore prayed for limited direction to the respondents to decide the representation 26.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel and counsel for respondent no. 3 did not raise any objection in this regard. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record 3 with utmost circumspection. 5. Since, the petitioner has prayed for a limited grievance, therefore, the respondent no. 3 is directed to decide the representation dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) expeditiously as soon as possible in accordance with law/rules/regulations. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima