1 / 5 2025:CGHC:44373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4397 of 2025 Archana Saraf W/o Late Ramesh Chandra Saraf Aged About 78 Years R/o Shop - 126, New Civic Center, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner 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. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.02 18:27:14 +0530 2 / 5 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 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Varma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondents No.3 & 7 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA For Respondents /UOI : Miss Anmol Sharma, CGC (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on admissibility of the petition, therefore, the default pointed out by the Registry is ignored. 2. 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 condition(s) 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 (Colly)”. 10.2 To set aside the offer letter/demand 3 / 5 letter dated 23.07.2013, issued to the Petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid resolution(s) Annexure “P/1B”. 10.3 To direct the concerned respondent(s) 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 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 respondent(s) not to dispossess and/or evict the petitioner from land bearing plot Shop No. 126 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 4 / 5 case.” 3. 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 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. He further contended that the cause of action is still alive. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 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 21st and 25th July, 2008 have levied the charges and increased the lease rent. Then on 23.07.2013 the respondents issued a offer letter to the petitioner and the petitioner has approached the Court by way of this writ petition on 04.08.2025, i.e. after lapse of 17 years. Even if it is presumed that on 23/07/2013 the cause of action arose then also after lapse of 12 years this petition has been filed, therefore, it is crystal 5 / 5 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 on the ground of delay and latches. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu