1 2025:CGHC:47687 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4943 of 2025 Nirmala Saraswat W/o Vimalkant Saraswat Aged About 64 Years R/o 11 D Street 12, Sector Bhilai Nagar, Civic Center Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Iron And Steel, Parliament House, New Delhi 2 - Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. (A Govt. Of India Undertaking) Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, 1 Shakespeare Sarani (8th Floor) Kolkata (W.B.) 3 - Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. (Local Unit At Bhilai) Through Its General Manager Bhilai P.O. Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/09/2025 2 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to call the entire record of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to hold consultations with the Petitioner before enhancing the rent in accordance with law/Rent Control Act. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue any other order/direction, Writ which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this petition is being filed against the impugned amended Circular No.Bhi/Admn/Estate/Rent/2022/169 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure P-1), whereby the authority has in the name of amendment, slightly decreased rent which is still 112% to 155% high from the earlier leased rate/rent which was being paid by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent of mention here that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) after 3 ½ years. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to file representation before the concerned respondent authority within ‘15 day’ from today and in turn the concerned respondent authority shall consider and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant