Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49729 (CHH)

CHANDAN ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/4652/2024 · 2025-09-14

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:47361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4652 of 2024 Chandan Enterprises Through Proprietor - Chandan Prasad Gupta, Aged About 41 Years, W/o. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, At - Bajartoli, Duldula, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, At - Collector Parisar, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Ceo Janpad Panchayat Duldula At - Village Duldula, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rural Engineering Service) Janpad Panchayat Duldula, At - Village Duldula, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Senior Taxation Officer Janpad Panchayat Duldula, At - Village Duldula, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate For State-respondent : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/09/2025 2 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to pass appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and direct respondent No.1 & 2 to make necessary arrangement and disbursal of funds to the petitioner so that his dues totaling to INR 3,35,192/- can be cleared within a time frame fixed by this Court. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to pass appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and direct respondent No.1 & 2 to take necessary steps to streamline the way for clearance of the petitioner’s due and clear her dues within a time frame fixed by this Court. 3. Any other relief/direction that he Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this petition may be disposed of directing to the concerned Collector to decide the Annexure P-1 dated 13.09.2023 and other grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. Learned State counsel contended that he has no objection on the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before Respondents No.1 & 2 along with enquiry report and technical committee report within a period of ‘15 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in turn respondents No.1 & 2 shall decide the said representation made by the petitioner within a period of ‘30 days’ from the date of submission of representation and the same shall be decided in an objective manner and if it is found that any undisputed claim is in favour of the petitioner, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 6. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant