1 2025:CGHC:53255-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 96 of 2025 Tilak Ram Markam S/o Shri Paltan Markam Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No.6, Pidhapal, P.O. Pidhapal Tehsil Kanker, District- Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Panchayat Directorate Sector 19, North Block- Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Collector District- Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Kanker District- Kanker (C.G.) 5 - District Collector District- Bastar (C.G.) 6 - Superintendent Of Police Bastar District- Bastar (C.G.) 7 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat District- Kanker (C.G.) 8 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 9 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Narharpur, District- Kanker (C.G.) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.04 10:37:40 +0530 2 10 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 11 - Gram Panchayat Kacche Through- Its Secretary, Village- Kacche, Tehsil - Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 12 - Gram Panchayat Parvi Through- Its Secretary Village- Parvi, Tehsil - Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 13 - Gram Panchayat Botechang Through- Its Secretary Village- Botechang, Tehsil- Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 14 - Gram Panchayat Dompadar Through- Its Secretary, Village- Dompadar, Tehsil- Narharpur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 15 - Gram Panchayat Jamgaon Through- Its Secretary, Village- Jamgaon, Tehsil- Narharpur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 16 - Gram Panchayat Mashulpani, Through- Its Secretary, Village- Mashulpani, Tehsil- Narharpur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 17 - Gram Panchayat Shrimur Through- Its Secretary, Village- Musurputta, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y. S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Y. S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General. 3 2. The present WPPIL has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs :- (i) Call for the relevant records of the case. (ii) Declare that the hoardings erected in the villages set out in para 8.2 of this petition are unconstitutional, illegal and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. (iii) Directing the respondents to remove the illegal hoardings above mentioned. (iv) Directing the respondent authorities particularly the Collector and Superintendent of Police, of District Kanker and District Bastar to visit the villages where the abovementioned hoardings have been erected and convene a meeting with the villagers/stake holders for the purpose of restoration of peace and harmony among different communities in order to instill a sense of security among Christians in the districts of Kanker and Bastar. (v) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. (a) At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) is no longer res integra, as the very same issue has already been considered and adjudicated upon by this Court in WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 & Anr., decided on 28.10.2025. 4 (b) It is submitted that in the said matter, the Division Bench had an occasion to examine the legality and validity of the hoardings installed by the concerned Gram Sabhas in various villages of the districts of Kanker and Bastar, purportedly with the object of preventing forcible religious conversions by way of allurement or fraudulent means. Learned counsel further submit that after detailed consideration of the pleadings, the relevant constitutional provisions, and the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022, this Court had come to the conclusion that such hoardings, when installed by the Gram Sabhas in exercise of their statutory powers, cannot be termed unconstitutional or violative of fundamental rights. (c) In view of the said decision, both the parties would submit that the present petition, being founded on identical facts and raising the same issues, stands fully covered by the judgment passed in WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 & Anr., and therefore, the present WPPIL may be disposed of in similar terms. 4. For the sake of convenience relevant part of the judgment dated 28/10/2025 passed by this Court in WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 & Anr. is reproduced hereinbelow:- “xxxx…. xxxx... 31. In view of the above observations made by the Apex Court, the installation of the hoardings for 5 preventing forcible conversion by way of allurement or fraudulent means cannot be termed as unconstitutional. The hoardings appears to have been installed by the concerned Gram Sabhas as a precautionary measure to protect the interest of indigenous tribals and local cultural heritage. 32. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position that the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy provided under the Rules of 2022. Rule 14 of the Rules of 2022 reads as under: Since the petitioners have an alternative remedy of approaching the Gram Sabha under Section 14(1) of the Rules of 2022 and if the petitioners are still aggrieved, they may file an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Section 14(2) of the Rules of 2022, which the petitioners have not taken recourse to, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy before approaching this Court. Further, in case the petitioners have any apprehension that they would be restrained from entering their villages or any threat perception exists, they may seek protection from the police. 33. Both petitions challenge actions of Gram Sabhas functioning under the PESA Rules of 2022. Rule 14 6 thereof provides a statutory remedy to raise any grievance before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) after reference to the concerned Gram Sabha. In view of such alternative statutory remedy, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions directly under Article 226 of the Constitution. 34. In view of the foregoing discussion, both WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 and WPPIL No. 86 of 2025 are disposed of with the following directions: The petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022 before the competent authority, if they so choose. In case the petitioner or any individual apprehend threat to life, liberty, or movement, they may seek protection from the jurisdictional police, which shall be considered in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Any observations made hereinabove, shall not prejudice the case of the petitioners, if they take recourse to the alternative remedy available to them and the same may be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with law, on 7 its own merits: The security amount deposited by the petitioner(s) stand forfeited. 5. In view of above and the judgment rendered by this Court in WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 & Anr., wherein identical issues were considered and decided by this Court, no separate adjudication on merits is required in the present petition, as the issue involved herein stands fully covered by the aforesaid decision. 6. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition (PIL) is also disposed of in the same terms and conditions as contained in the order passed in WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 & Anr. 7. All interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The security amount deposited by the petitioner(s) shall stand forfeited. 8. Copy of order dated 28/10/2025 passed by this Court in WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 & Anr. be tagged alongwith the record of the present WPPIL. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar