1 2025:CGHC:45178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4721 of 2025 1 - Mohan Kumar Rao S/o Shri T. Shankar Rao Aged About 50 Years R/o 30, Block Balaji Nagar, Near Ganesh Temple, Sector 111, Khamtrai, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sarita Rao W/o Shri Mohan Kumar Rao Aged About 42 Years R/o 30, Block Balaji Nagar, Near Ganesh Temple, Sector 111, Khamtrai, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Icici Bank Limited Through Authorized Officer Satpal Chamber, Telibandha Road, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur, Distt. And Session Court Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Magistrate Cum Collector Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The District Registrar Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raman Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following relief: “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call records with respect to the 2 instant writ petition. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure A/1). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent no. 3 to immediately examine application u/s 16, 31, 32 of Stamp Act, (Annexure A/2). 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to appoint any officer to examine Stamp Duty as mandate in Section 33[2] (B) of C.G. Stamps, Court fees & Registration Manual. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned authority to initiate disciplinary action against respondent no.3 for non-compliance of Indian Stamp Act provision. 10.6 Any other relief, which may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to respondent no. 3 to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 02.01.2025 (Annexure A/2) expeditiously within a time frame. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the matter relates to SARFAESI Act and an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner that he may file case before DRT, therefore the present petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, respondent no. 3 is directed to decide the application made by the petitioner on 02.01.2025 (Annexure A/2), in accordance with law, rules and regulations, expeditiously as soon as possible. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima