1 2025:CGHC:49159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5097 of 2025 1 - Ranvijay Kumar Yadav S/o Lal Dhar Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. Lig-35, Cg Housing Board Colony, Dindayal Residential Scheme Amleshwar, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The District Magistrate Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The In-Charge Of Copy Section Of District Magistrate Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Tehsildar Patan District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Authorized Officer Of Idbi Bank Limited Nil ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raman Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or direction to respondent no. 1 to decide petitioner 2 representation as soon as possible without further delay. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or direction to respondent no. 2 to provide legible and clear copy of impugned order and annexed documents without further delay. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant interim relief to petitioner.” 2. Learned counsels for the petitioner submits that on 14.01.2025 the petitioner made an application to provide the documents but the no document was provided by respondent no. 2 thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 75 of BSA, 2023 on 07.02.2025 for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order along with all annexures. However, the respondent no. 2 in-charge of the copying section of the District Magistrate’s office provided a faint, illegible, and incorrectly paginated certified copy of the impugned order and relevant documents despite the petitioner paying the requisite fees. 3. At the outset, learned State counsel contended that the copy provided to the petitioner is readable and even the petitioner wants a more legible copy of the impugned order, he may apply before the copying section of Collectorate, Durg. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition and is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties on maintainability and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Since the petitioner has already obtained a legible copy of the impugned order, therefore there is no good ground to entertain this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. However, if the petitioner wants, he may apply for a fresh copy of impugned order before the copying section of Collectorate, Durg, C.G. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima