1 2025:CGHC:47688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4941 of 2025 1 - Vinod Sahu S/o Shri Ram Kshore Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Gorakhpur, Tehsil- Pendra Road, District- Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amol Pathak S/o Shri Omprakash Pathak Aged About 49 Years R/o Agrasen Chowk, Gaurela, Tehsil- Pendra Road, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Tourism Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Through- Its Managing Director, 2nd Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 01, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division- Marwahi, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ranger, Forest Range- Gaurela, Forest Division- Marwahi, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 2 7 - Joint Forest Management Committee Aamanala, Through- Its Its Secretary, Village- Tharpathra, Tehsil Gaurela, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 8 - Yogendra Singh Chauhan S/o Late Shri Chandrabhan Singh Chauhan Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 42, Venkatnagar Road, Pendra Road, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL For Tourism Board : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ (s), direction (s) by commanding/directing the Office of Ranger, Gaurela (respondent No.6) to decide the representation /correspondence (Annexure P-3) as per law, within a time frame and in between the adjudication of the representation (Annexure P/3), no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners by illegally directing the petitioners to vacate the resort from its maintenance, management and operational, in the interest of justice. 3 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the instant Petition is against inaction of respondent authorities, particularly respondents No. 5 and 6 (DFO and Ranger), whereby even after the tripartite memorandum of understanding (MoU) dated 03.09.2025, for maintenance, management and operational of Dharampani Eco Tourist Resort, the authorities are orally directing the petitioners to vacate the premises with immediate effect without any fault or violation on the part of petitioners, as per the terms and conditions prescribed in the MoU dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P/1). The inaction on the part of respondent authorities are holistic discriminatory and punitive in nature. Even though on 10.09.2025, the petitioners have made a correspondence (Annexure P/3) to the office of respondent No.6 (Ranger), as per Clause 9 of the MoU dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P/1), but no acknowledgement is provided to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for respondents contended that the respondent authorities have not issued any order against the petitioners and the petitioners have filed the petition only on the basis of presumption, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Further considering the submission made by by counsel for the petitioner that particularly respondent No.5 has orally directing to the petitioners to vacate the premises with immediate effect. On perusal of Memorandum of Understanding/MoU ( Annexure P-1), it is crystal clear that if any dispute shall arise between the parties, the matter shall referred to the Range Officer, Gaurela and the conditions No.6 provides that either party can terminate the agreement by giving one month’s notice from the date of MoU executed by the parties. It is also clear that the petitioners have made representation/correspondence on 10.09.2025 (Annexure P-3) before the Office of the Ranger, Range Marwahi Forest Devision, but there is no receiving of the said correspondence is available on record, therefore, petitioners are directed to file a fresh representation before the Range Officer, Forest Range – Gaurela, Forest Division Marwahi within ‘15 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in turn the Range Officer, Forest Range – Gaurela, Forest Division Marwahi shall decide the said representation of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, as per MoU executed between the parties (Annexure P-1) 5 and on its own merits after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant