1 2025:CGHC:43498-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 474 of 2025 1. Goldsikka Limited, Through its Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) Syed Taruj Ahmed, Address, H. No. 1-10-60 To 62, 2nd Floor, Ashoka Raghupati Chamber, Opposite Shoppers Stop, S.P. Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad (Telangana), Pin Code- 500016. 2. Syed Taruj Ahmed S/o Shri Syed Ahsan Aged About 54 Years R/o H. No. 1-10-60 To 62, 2nd Floor, Ashoka Raghupati Chamber, Opposite Shoppers Stop, S.P. Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad (Telangana), Pin Code- 500016. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Department of Home Affairs Represented By Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. Director General of Police Chhattisgarh, Police, Headquaters Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3. Inspector General of Police Shankar Nagar, Main Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Department of Economic Offence Wing Through Its Superintendent of Police / Officer-In-Charge, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 5. M/s Yogesh Salt Traders Through Its Proprietor Shri Munisha Kumar Saha, R/o Mahesh Colony, Gudhiyaari, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 492009 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.28 18:38:34 +0530 2 6. Munisha Kumar Saha S/o Shri Om Prakash Saha R/o Mahesh Colony, Srinagar Road, Gudhiyaari, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 492009 ...Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Syed Asad Hussain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pranay Golchha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Syed Asad Hussain, leanred Senior Advocate (through video conferencing), assisted by Mr. Pranay Golchha, learned consel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “10.1 the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, declaring the actions of the Police and government officials particularly respondent No. 4 of harassing, threatening and calling the petitioner to appear before the Department of Economic Offence Wing and compelling him to disburse the certain amount of money to the private respondents or else 3 face consequences as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, directing the respondent authorities particularly respondent No. 4 to refrain from harassing, threatening and calling the petitioners before the Department of Economic Offence Wing, without following due process of law, in absence of any valid reason and casue. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, directing the respondent authorities particularly respondent No. 4 to refrain from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners and its directors at the instance of any complaints of the private respondents or getting influence from private respondents. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct for the inquiry against the respondent authorities for their actions being illegal and outside the jurisdiction of law. 10.5 Pass appropriate orders, in favour of the petitioners, so far as the cost of the litigation and other miscellaneous expenses are concerned.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are not assailing any specific or particular order passed by any authority. Instead, the grievance raised herein pertains to the alleged illegal and unlawful actions of the respondent Police and 4 Government officials, particularly respondent No. 4, who, without there being any crime registered against the petitioners and without any valid cause or justification, are incessantly harassing petitioner No. 2. It is urged that such unwarranted actions are not only interfering with the personal liberty of petitioner No. 2, but are also causing illegal obstruction in the day-to-day business activities of petitioner No.1/Company. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent authorities, by acting without adherence to the due procedure of law, are conducting themselves in an illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional manner, thereby violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the respondent authorities are allegedly harassing and threatening the petitioners to pay a certain amount of money, which forms the subject matter of a dispute between the petitioners and private respondents No. 5 and 6, failing which the petitioners would be compelled to face registration of a criminal case and consequential coercive steps. It is urged that the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents is essentially civil in nature, arising out of an alleged breach of the Bullion Trade Credit Advance Agreement executed between the parties. In fact, incessant correspondences are already taking place between the parties with regard to the said agreement, and significantly, Clause 8 of the agreement incorporates an arbitration clause providing for resolution of disputes through arbitration. Despite such a remedy being available, it is 5 alleged that the private respondents No. 5 and 6, by exerting influence upon respondent authorities, are attempting to resort to illegal methods for exerting pressure upon the petitioners. It is further alleged that respondent No. 4, acting at the instance of and under the influence of the private respondents, has been threatening petitioner No. 2 and compelling his appearance before the Department, thereby creating undue pressure upon the petitioners to succumb to the alleged frivolous monetary demands of the private respondents, without resorting to lawful remedies available under the law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would, therefore, submit that the petitioners are left with no other efficacious remedy, but to approach this Court, seeking protection of their fundamental rights. The prayer made is for issuance of directions to the respondent authorities, and particularly to respondent No. 4, to forthwith refrain from harassing, threatening, or calling upon the petitioners to appear before the Department of Economic Offence Wing without following due process of law, more so when no crime stands registered against them. It is also prayed that respondent No. 4 be restrained from taking any coercive steps or proceeding in any manner against the petitioners on the basis of complaints made by, or under the influence of, the private respondents No. 5 and 6. Hence, this petition. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioners and submits that no summons or notices have been issued to the petitioners by the respondent authorities. In the absence 6 of any such action having been taken, the present petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the pleadings, prayers and annexures placed on record in support of the petition. 8. On a pointed query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether any summons or notices have in fact been issued to the petitioners by respondent No. 4, no satisfactory or plausible explanation was forthcoming. Further, no documents have been filed on record to substantiate the said allegation. In such circumstances, the allegations levelled in the writ petition appear to be vague, unsupported, and lacking in material particulars. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court afresh, in the event any summons or notices are issued to them. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan