Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51919 (CHH)

M/S SINGHAL STEEL AND POWER PVT. LIMITED v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/5405/2025 · 2025-10-14

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:51329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 5405 of 2025 M/s Singhal Steel And Power Pvt. Limited (Formerly Known As M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Singhal Energy Pvt. Ltd.) (A Company Registered With Registrar Of Companies) Having Its Office At Village Tarimal, P.O. Gerwani, Gharghoda, District- Raigarh C.G. Through Its Director Sanjay Agrawal. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Labour Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Chief Inspector Of Factories, Industrial Health And Safety Department, Office Of Labour Commissioner, Indravati Bhawan, 2nd Floor Naya Raipur C.G. 3 - Deputy Director, Industrial Health And Safety Department, Near Shweta Medial Store Chakradhar Nagar Chowk, Raigarh C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/10/2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.10.15 17:39:23 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “(i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondents to expeditiously consider the pending on-line application number 213200 dated 23.03.2025 (Annexure P/1). (ii) That, the respondent no.1 be kindly directed to pass appropriate order in the facts submitted before the Respondent No.3 without discriminating the Petitioners from other companies whose similar applications have already been granted recently. (iii) Any other writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed, together with the cost of litigation, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that previously presented application for integration by the petitioner was rejected because revenue Rs.2,37,800/- for the year 2025 was observed after integration. Thereafter, the petitioner has again filed application and assured to compensate shortcoming in fees amount due to integration of his two units to the Government/CIF as per the advise of CIF/Govt/(may revised subject to any future guideline from Government) and in this regard, he has filed affidavit for compensation of fees. However, as per Annexure P-6, Deputy Director has recommended that in present application due to the integration, revenue loss for calendar year 2025 amounting to Rs.2,37,800/- still persists and which will continue in future years as per prescribed fee, hence application is recommended 3 for rejection. Thereafter, no decision has been taken by the Secretary till today. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned State counsel contended the concerned authority is ready to decide the application made by the petitioner as per rules, regulations ans law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsels for the respective parties, respondent No.1 – Secretary, Labour Department is directed to consider and decide the application made by the petitioner on 23.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) (Application No.213200), in accordance with rules, regulations and law, expeditiously preferably within a period of ‘90 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant