1 2025:CGHC:40111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4256 of 2025 Kishan Lal Tolwani S/o Late Shri Tolaram Tolwani Aged About 70 Years R/o Shahid Hemu Nagar, Ward No. 45, Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Registrar Firms And Sansthaye, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Block - 1, 3rd Floor, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Office Of The Collectorate Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - President/secretary, Bilaspur Merchant Association Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Protector, Bilaspur Merchant Association Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner and for kind perusal of this High 2 Court. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to restrain the unnecessary false whatsapp message to the petitioner and open the sealed shop of the petitioner. 10.3 That the Hobn’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give compensation to the petitioner till sealed the shop of the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is proprietor of Bhawna Traders and is running shop and member of the Bilaspur Merchant Association. On 26.04.2014, respondent no. 1 issued order regarding cancel of registration of Bilaspur Merchant Association and sealed the shop of the petitioner. Also respondent no. 3 and 4 are sending whatsapp messages to the other members stating not to deal with the petitioner which illegal, improper and incorrect. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions of the counsels for the respective parties, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioner is against the private respondents and the petitioner has made complaint against the private respondents on 17.03.2024, therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima