1 2025:CGHC:61412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6330 of 2025 1 - Vinod Sahu S/o Shri Ram Kishore Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Gorakhpur, Tehsil Pendra Road District- Gaurela -Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) 2 - Amol Pathak S/o Shri Omprakash Pathak Aged About 49 Years R/o Agrasen Chowk, Gaurela, Tehsil Pendra Road, District- Gaurela -Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department, Of Forest Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Tourism Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Through Its Managing Director, 2nd Floor Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 01 Telibandha, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi District- Gaurela- Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Marwahi District- Gaurela- Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) 6 - Ranger Forest Range- Gaurela Forest Division Marwahi District- Gaurela- Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) 7 - Joint Forest Management Committee Aamanala, Through Its Secretary, Village Tharpathra Tehsil Gaurela, District- Gaurela - Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2025.12.18 15:04:25 +0530 2 8 - Yogendra Singh Chauhan S/o Late Shri Chandrabhan Singh Chauhan Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Venkatnagar Road Pendra Road, District- Gaurela - Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Surfuraz Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate along with Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rishab Bisen, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 17 /12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ (s), order (s), direction (s) by quashing the impugned letters dated 18/11/2025 (Annexure P- 1) issued from the office of respondent no. 6 (Forest Ranger Gourella) and further issuing a suitable writ by commanding/directing the Office of Ranger, Gaurela (respondent No.6) to decide the representation / correspondence (Annexure P-3) as per law, within a time frame, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, if the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners entered into an Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter for brevity referred to as MoU) for running the Dharampani Eco Tourism Resort with the Joint Forest Management Committee, Ranger Officer, Forest Range – Gaurella. According to the MoU, the petitioners are required to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per month in the account of Respondent No. 7/JMFC Aamanala which was duly deposited. However, the deposit is made in the account of Gram Van Samiti Aamanala. The account of the Gram Van Samiti Aamanala also belongs to the Respondent No. 7/JMFC Aamanala 3 and the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited on 06.11.2025, however, it appears that without verifying the bank account of Gram Van Samiti, Aamanala, the notices dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) was issued on the ground that the petitioners are not depositing the requisite monthly charge of Rs. 50,000/- with the Respondent No. 7/JMFC which in the statement of account and the deposit receipt enclosed along with the writ petition appears to be not correct. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that according to the instructions received by him, action has been taken against the petitioners for not depositing the amount after execution of the MoU between the parties. He submits that according to the further information gathered and copy of the statement of bank accounts of Gram Van Samiti, Aamanala which is forwarded by the concerned authority, it is admitted that the petitioners have deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 06.11.2025. He also contended that the monthly fee which is to be deposited by the petitioners is Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioners are not regularly depositing the amount and if this Court comes to conclusion that petitioner is entitled for some relief, then observation be made that the petitioners will deposit the monthly amount regularly in favour of the Respondent No. 7/JMFC. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the month of November, 2025, for this month also, petitioners have deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 12.12.2025 and further submits that the petitioners will regularly deposit the requisite fee as per the MoU timely and therefore, the notices dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 4 6. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised by the petitioners and notices dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) which is issued only because the petitioners have not deposited the requisite monthly fee of Rs. 50,000/- as stated by the counsel for the Respondents/State on instructions, I am inclined to allow this writ pettiion. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the notice dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and it is further directed to the petitioners to deposit the requisite fee regularly and comply with the terms and conditions of the MoU in its word and spirit. If the petitioners fail to comply with the terms and conditions in future, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey