1 2025:CGHC:47934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4952 of 2025 1 - Rajneesh Sahu S/o Shri Palak Ram Sahu, Aged About 54 Years R/o Devnandan Nagar, Phase - 2, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Kailash Chand Tharwani, Assistant Food Officer, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri Ravishankar Komra, District Food Officer, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Khumeshwar Singh, District Food Officer, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/09/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (i)That, the Hon’ble Court may be kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to decide the complaint dated 16.07.2025 of the petitioner within a fixed time frame. (ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 & 2 to conduct verification of certificates of respondent No. 3 to 5 and pass appropriate order orders in accordance with law. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.23 10:50:19 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any order of the respondents but this petition has filed for necessary direction to the respondent No. 1 & 2 to decide the complaint dated 16.07.2025 of the petitioner within a fixed time frame made against the respondent No. 3 to 5 who have obtained appointment in the Government service on the basis of a false and fabricated certificates claiming themselves to be candidates of reserved category, whereas in reality they does not belong to such category. Hence this petition for necessary direction to the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of keeping the present writ petition pending, I find it appropriate to dismiss the petition of the petitioner as no ground is made out by the petitioner which warrants interference because the petitioner has not submitted any document in respect of the allegation is made by the petitioner that respondent has got forged document of caste certificate, as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before an appropriate forum. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti