1 2025:CGHC:42644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4511 of 2025 Chandrakant Yadav S/o Shri M.L. Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Tehka, P.O. Datrengi, Tehsil Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Dept. Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Of Police District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - The Tehsildar Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Manisha Singh Patwari P.H. No. 04, Village Tehka, Tehsil Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - Shri Ramkhilawan Dhruw S/o Late Ramnath Dhruw Aged About 38 Years R/o Subhash Ward Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishab Bisen, PL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 22.08.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10. Relief (s) sought : A. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 02 to initiate appropriate legal and departmental action against Respondent No.6 in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. B. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to appropriately use the said bore pump, to which the Petitioner is lawfully and rightfully entitled, without any obstruction or interference, in the interest of justice. C. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow any other relief which the Court deems fit and proper with cost of petition.” 2. During course of the arguments, this Court finds that this writ petition is not maintainable as there is dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent No.7 and further petitioner is having alternate remedy to file an application before the concerned Tahsildar for redressal of his grievance. 3. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned Tahsildar. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-