Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32822 (CHH)

MUKESH TIWARI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/2920/2019 · 2025-02-04

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:6384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2920 of 2019 Mukesh Tiwari S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Aged About 36 Years Occupation Laboratory Technician Services, Bilaspur, R/o H- 1/16, Nutan Colony, Bilaspur, Police Station And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Devendra Patel Competent Authority Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Collector O/o Collector, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None, even in second round. For State/ respondents : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 04/02/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 10.1 Hold that impugned order dated 06.08.2019 is absolutely erroneous and Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.05 10:10:48 +0530 2 bad in law and is therefore set aside (Annexure P/7) 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 2) It appears that a government accommodation was allotted to petitioner who was holding the post of Laboratory Assistant at O/o Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur vide order dated 30.03.2005 at Nutan Colony, Bilaspur. Deputy Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 06.08.2019 canceled the allotment order dated 30.03.2005 on the ground that petitioner has his own accommodation. 3) Taking into consideration the fact that allotment of government accommodation was canceled on the ground that petitioner is having is own accommodation in the city, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. 4) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya