1 2025:CGHC:57669-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6204 of 2025 Lokesh Sharma S/o Shri Jaideep Sharma Aged About 28 Years Resident Of House No.162, Ward Number-33, Ram Mandir Gali, Brahman Para, Rajnandgaon, Post- Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Mineral Resources, Mahanadi, Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) 3 - The District Mineral O4cer Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.27 16:46:16 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27/11/2025 1. Heard Shri Govind Prasad Dewangan,, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been 7lled for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and cancel the entire auction/lottery proceedings dated 13.11.2025 for Arjuni Sand Quarry as illegal, arbitrary &void, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and Direct the respondents to conduct a fresh, transparent, and error-free e-lottery/e- auction strictly in accordance with law, in the interest of 3 justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'bleCourt deems +t and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner, an eligible and duly registered participant in the e-lottery/e-auction conducted on 13.11.2025 for allotment of the Arjuni Sand Quarry, found that his name did not appear on the computer screen during the live lottery display, despite o4cials later o=ering an unsubstantiated explanation of a “computer error” and claiming that his name was included “inside the lottery box” without producing any technical report, proof, or system logs. No corrective action or veri7cation was undertaken at the site, and the petitioner’s objections were ignored. He subsequently submitted a written complaint to the Collector on 14.11.2025 and later 7led an RTI application seeking video footage and electronic records of the auction, but both remain unaddressed. These circumstances indicate procedural irregularity, non- transparency, and administrative apathy, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4 respondents acted arbitrarily by failing to display the petitioner’s name during the online lottery and by giving an unsupported explanation of a “computer error” without any technical proof. It is contended that no action was taken on the petitioner’s written complaint dated 14.11.2025 and that even the RTI request for video footage and log records remains unanswered, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005. Counsel argues that the exclusion of an eligible participant and the faulty display system vitiate the entire auction process due to illegality, bias, and procedural irregularity. 5. On the other hand, Learned State counsel during the course of argument has submitted a document relating to this case, which is taken on record and would submit that the online lottery for Arjuni Sand Quarry was duly conducted on 13.11.2025 through the MSTC portal, where 214 eligible applications were included after scrutiny. The petitioner’s application, bearing MSTC Registration No. 586287, was found valid and his name was listed in the LOTTERY PARTICIPANT DETAILS. During the shuFing, the computer screen brieGy went into standby mode, though the lottery process 5 continued, and once the display resumed, the petitioner’s name appeared inside the lottery box, for which a screenshot has been 7led. The MSTC list of eligible bidders also shows the petitioner’s name at serial No. 154. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner’s allegations are baseless and the writ petition is without merit. 6. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petition 7. From perusal of the document which has been placed by the State counsel, it is evident that the petitioner’s application was duly found eligible by the competent authorities and his name was included in the LOTTERY PARTICIPANT DETAILS generated from the MSTC portal. The list of eligible bidders placed on record clearly reGects the petitioner’s name at serial No. 154, and the screenshot produced by the respondents also shows that the petitioner’s name appeared in the lottery box during the online shuFing process. In view of these materials, the allegation that the petitioner was not included in the lottery or was denied participation is not borne out from the record. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. 6 8. In view thereof, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib