1 2025:CGHC:49143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 5118 of 2025 Ruchi Kasliwal W/o Sandesh Kasliwal Aged About 44 Years R/o Shop No. 158, Sector Cc, Ip, New Civic Centre Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Through Its Chairman, Having Its Corporate Office At Ispat Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant (Sail) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Assitant General Manager (Shop, Lease And Licence) Sail Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Manager (Estate), Town Administration Department, Sail Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - Additional Town Administrator (Admn.) Sail Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 6 - Assistant Manager Estate (Shops) Sail Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 7 - Chief General Manager (Ta And Csr) Sail Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 2 8 - Chief General Manager (Personnel), Corporate Office At Ispat Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Steel, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, 110011 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Choubey, Advocate (appears through video conferencing) with Mr. Anmol Varma, Advocate For Respondents No.3 & 7 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For State-respondent : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.11 : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1. To declare the resolution passed in the 340% Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 21st and 25th July, 2008 along with approved terms and condition(s) of the allotment (leasing/sub-leasing) as unconstitutional, bad in-law and void ab initio and as a consequence quash/set-aside Annexure "P/1A"(Colly). 3 10.2. To direct the Respondents to issue an offer letter renewing the lease in accordance with the terms of the previous lease deed. 10.3. To direct the concerned respondent(s) to re- consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of lease deeds dated 02.05.1991 as per Clause-4 sub clause (1) of the aforesaid deeds and as sequitur re- calculate the amount to be paid by the petitioner for renewal of lease deeds dated 02.05.1991 as per Clause-4 sub clause (1) of the aforesaid deeds. 10.4. As sequitur to preceding clauses 10.1-10.3 issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondent(s) to issue a fresh offer letter/demand letter to the Petitioner. 10.5. To direct the concerned answering respondent (s) not to dispossess and/or evict the petitioner from land bearing plot No. 158 situated in Sector CC, IP, New Civic Centre Bhilai, District-Durg/subject leased property. 10.6. To pass an appropriate writ, order, or direction as this Hon'ble 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 with permission to the petitioner to file representation before the concerned authority and it may be directed to the concerned authority to decide the same in accordance with law. 3. Leaned counsel for respondents No.3 & 7 contended that if the petitioner file representation before the authority, the authority shall consider and decide the such representation, as per law. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties, instead of keeping this petition pending, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition directing to petitioner to file representation before the concerned authority raising her all grievances within ‘15 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in turn the concerned authority shall consider and decide the such representation of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within an outer limit of ‘90 days’ from the date of submission of such representation and production of order of this Court, in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 6. Petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition, if new cause of action arises later on. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant