1 2025:CGHC:56038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6004 of 2025 • Premshankar Shrivastava, S/o Late Johari Lal Shrivastava, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Ward No.19 Lohara Road, Near Railway Fatak, Balod, District Balod (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4. Tahsildar Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5. Nagar Palika Parishad Balod, Through Chief Municipal Officer Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 6. Firoz Qureshi, S/o Mohammad Arif, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No.9, Kurmipara, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus whereby to direct the respondent No.2 and 5 to decide the pending representation dated 16.10.2025 in light of the order dated 25.08.2025 passed in Case No.04/A-89/Year 2021-22 (202112240100004) by the Court of Collector Balod in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier notice was issued to the respondent No.6 from the Office of Food Security Officer, which was put to challenge by private respondents in writ petition, the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure-P/2) passed in WPC No.2410/2022. Against the dismissal of the said writ petition, respondent No.6 has filed writ appeal bearing WA No.785/2024, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure-P/3). Subsequently, the Food Security Officer vide order dated 08.11.2024, after considering the reply submitted by respondent No.6 based on the show cause notice has cancelled the Food License, issued in his favour. From Annexure-P/5, the order dated 25.08.2025, it is appearing that respondent No.6 has submitted an appeal against the order of the respondent No.5 dated 29.11.2021, as provided under Section 308 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. The Collector while disposing the appeal has made an observation that respondent No.6/appellant therein may be allotted an alternate suitable place for running his business. According to the claim of the petitioner, respondent No.6 is still running his mutton and chicken shop at the earlier place by the side of house of the petitioner without there being any license, and therefore, petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents No.2 to 5, however, till date no action and decision has been taken on the representation, and therefore, direction be issued to respondents No.2 to 5 to take action on the representation submitted by the 3 petitioner within the specified time frame. 3. 3. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner for considering the representation pending before the respondents No.2 to 5, he is having no objection. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the proceedings as discussed in preceding paragraphs by the Food Security Officer, dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent No.6 as also the writ appeal and further submission counsel of the petitioner that respondent No.6 is still running mutton and chicken shop by the side of the house of the petitioner, even after cancellation of the Food License issued in his favour, at this stage, the writ petition stands disposed of, directing respondents No.2 to 5 to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge