1 2025:CGHC:59857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6011 of 2025 1. Mangal Prasad Shrivas S/o (Late) Shri R.D. Shrivas Aged About 68 Years R/o Palash 93, Raj Kishore Nagar, Sarkanda, Tah. And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mobile No. 9425543632 ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Govt, Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Cooperative Dept. Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, (C.G.) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sunil Tiwari Joint Registrar/ Registrar, C.G. State Of Co- Operative Tribunal, Imli, Para Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.12.10 17:55:17 +0530 2 “10.1. that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and issue the appropriate direction towards the respondent No.01 to consider & decide the complaint appeal dated 28.04.2025 on merit made by petitioner in accordance with service rules, law within stipulated time. 10.2.That, if Your Lordship deems just and fair, may pass any order/writ/direction into favour of petitioner in the lights of facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-1, however, it has not been considered and decided till date, therefore, a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to take decision on appeal/ representation submitted by petitioner at the earliest within specified time. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 to 3- State opposing submissions of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, would submit that petitioner is having no locus to file present petition in the facts of case. He contended that earlier similar nature of complaint was filed by one Vinay Shukla against respondent No.4 before concerned authority. When no action was taken on that complaint, Vinay Shukla filed writ petition bearing WPC No.3097/2021 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.9.2023 directing respondent No.1 and 2 therein to conclude the proceeding against respondent No.4 herein started on 23.11.2020 within stipulated time frame. Accordingly, an inquiry was conducted 3 on the complaint of Vinay Shukla and report was submitted by the Additional Commissioner, Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 4.4.2024. Based on inquiry report, the State Government passed the order on 30.1.2025 (Page No.20 of writ petition) whereby complaint made by Vinay Shukla was considered on merits and closed. He contended that petitioner was not the party to the proceeding which was earlier initiated, however, after passing of the order, an application in the form of appeal is filed by petitioner before respondent No.1 which is not permissible in eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has supported submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3-State. 5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record. 6. Petitioner along with this petition has placed on record coppy of order dated 29.9.2023 passed by this Court in WPC No.30947/2021, which was filed by Vinay Shukla. Said writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No.1 and 2 therein to conclude the proceeding initiated on the complaint of Vinay Shukla. Inquiry report is also submitted before the Secretary, Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 4.4.2024 and the State Government vide order dated 30.1.2025 considering the inquiry report as also complaint by 4 Vinay Shukla levelling allegation of bigamy respondent No.4 herein, has passed an order and closed the complaint considering allegations on merits. 7. From the aforementioned facts of the case, it is apparent that petitioner was not a party in the proceeding which was initiated based on complaint made by Vinay Shukla nor in WPC No.3097/2021. The authority concerned based on complaint making allegation of bigamy against respondent No.4, initiated proceedings, conducted inquiry and based on inquiry report, has taken the decision to close the complaint of Vinay Shukla. When once the complaint filed by one person is considered, inquiry was directed and after receipt of inquiry report, State Government considering allegations on merits, found no substance on complaint and closed it by passing detailed order, another complaint or proceeding by other person on same allegation against same person is not permissible under law. 8. For the foregoing discussion and reason, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-