1 2025:CGHC:41975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4401 of 2025 1 - Bhagwat Tiwari S/o J L Tawari Aged About 69 Years Of Shop No. 170 Situated In New Civic Centre Bhilai, Durg, District Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Through Its Chairman, Having Its Corporate Office At Ispat Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant (S A I L) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. 3 - Assistant General Manager (Shop, Lease And Licence) S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. 4 - Manager (Estate) Town Administration Department, S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. 5 - Additional Town Administrator (Admn.) S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. 6 - Assistant Manager Estate (Shops) S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. 7 - Chief General Manager (T A And C S R) S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. 8 - Chief General Manager (Personnel) Corporate Office At Ispat Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 11 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Steel, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, 110011 ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anmol Verma on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Niraj Baghel on behalf of Mr. R. K. Mishra, DSGI Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 To declare the resolution passed in the 340th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 21st and 25th July, 2008 along with approved terms and conditions of the allotment (leasing/sub- leasing) as unconstitutional, bad in law and void ab initio and as a consequence quash/set-aside Annexure P/1A. 10.2 To set aside the offer letter/demand letter dated 19.04.2013 issued to the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid resolutions Annexure P/1B. 10.3 To direct the concerned respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of lease deed dated 22.04.1982 as per Clause-4 sub clause (1) of the aforesaid deeds and as 3 sequitur re-calculate the amount to be paid by the petitioner for renewal of lease deeds dated 22.04.1982 as per Clause 4 sub clause (1) of the aforesaid deeds. 10.4 As sequitur to preceding clauses 10.1-10.3 issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to issue a fresh offer letter/demand letter to the petitioner. 10.5 To direct the concerned answering respondents not to dispossess and/or evict the petitioner from land bearing plot Shop No. 119 situated in New Civic Centre, Bhilai, District- Durg/ subject leased property. 10.6 To pass an appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Steel Authority of India Limited in its 340th Meeting held on 21st and 25th July, 2008, and the offer letter issued pursuant thereto. It is submitted that pursuant to the said resolution, arbitrary charges 4 have been levied, and the lease rent has been increased exponentially, in violation of the original terms of lease and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is filed by the petitioner after a delay of 17 years, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.— Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. 6. On perusal of record, this Court found that the Board of Directors of the Steel Authority of India Limited in its 340th Meeting held on 5 21st and 25th July, 2008 have levied the arbitrary charges and increased the lease rent. Then on 13.12.2013 the respondents issued a offer letter to the petitioner and the petitioner has approached the Court by way of this writ petition on 01.08.2025, i.e. after lapse of 17 years, therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was sleeping over his right. 7. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima