1 2025:CGHC:9911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.3033 of 2018 1 - Hindustan Scouts and Guides Through National Commissioner And State Organization Commissioner, State Office-68-B, Street No. 12, Smrti Nagar, Bhilai, Supela, Chhattisgarh, Dr. Rakesh Mishra, S/o Late Shri Kalika Mishra, Aged About 52, National Commissioner And State Organization Commissioner Of The Hindustan Scouts And Guides. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Chief-Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (CG) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Youth Affairs And Sports, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (CG) 4 - Bharat Scouts And Guides Address- Sport Complex, Outdoor Stadium, Gate No. 3, E-Block, Boodhapara, Raipur (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) No.1 to 3 : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : None, though served Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 27.02.2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner has not challenging any particular order, but questioning the discriminatory action on the part of the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 respondent-authorities for not allotting grant-in-aid to the petitioner, as the same has been granted to the Respondent No.4-Bharat Scouts and Guides, Raipur. The petitioner has, thus, been deprived for the same. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already submitted a representation in this regard on 07.08.2018 (Annexure P- 6) before the Respondent No.2-State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of School Education, Raipur, however, the same has not been decided till date, though several reminders have also been made in this regard vide Annexure P-6. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the instant petition may be disposed of with a direction to the aforesaid authority for taking an appropriate decision on the representation, dated 07.08.2018. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 3/State has raised no objection with regard to the said proposal made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the instant petition has not been made against any particular order, but, the petitioner is questioning the discriminatory action on the part of the State authorities for not allotting the grant-in-aid, like the respondent No.4 and the petitioner has been deprived for the same, therefore, a representation dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure-P/6) was made in this regard for redressal of his grievance, which has, however, not been decided till date. In view of the said fact and that by considering a limited nature of the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, the Court feels that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending as it can be disposed of at this stage. 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2-State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of School Education, 3 Raipur, to take an appropriate decision on the said representation, made on 07.08.2018 (Annexure-P/6), as soon as possible, preferably within the period of 45 days from receiving the certified copy of this order. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane