1 2025:CGHC:5555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 497 of 2019 1 - Yogesh Kumar Pathak S/o Shri Laxmi Sevak Pathak Aged About 40 Years R/o Purana Bus Stand Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nilima Jyotishi D/o Ramashankar Jyotishi R/o Brahmanpara Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, Disrtict- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vedram Chaturvedi S/o Parsuram Chaturvedi Ra.Ni.Ma. Lormi, At Present R/o Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate along with Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, PL For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record from the courts below. Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure P-1) and to uphold the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Lormi District Mungell dated 27.07.2011. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 2. The facts of the present case are that on 19.10.2009, an advertisement was issued for the grant of licence under the Chhattisgarh Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Scheme for Lormi. The applications were invited from the actual residents of Lormi. Respondent No. 2 applied for the domicile certificate before the Tehsildar, Lormi and vide order dated 16.11.2009, the Tehsildar issued a domicile certificate of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as a residence certificate of Lormi. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Tehsildar under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code which was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Lormi and the certificate issued by the Tehsildar Lormi was cancelled vide order dated 27.07.2011. Against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur which was allowed vide order dated 03.07.2012. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, the petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2018. 3 3. Mr. Diwan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 2 is not a resident of Village Lormi. He would further submit that according to Clause 3 of the Advertisement for LPG Distribution Dealership, the candidate must be a resident of a particular village or city. He would contend that according to the report submitted by Patwari, respondent No. 2 had shown her place of residence as Kawardha and it was again modified as Lormi. He would further contend that the Revenue Inspector, Lormi has stated in his evidence that without verifying the fact from the register or document, such a certificate was issued. He would also submit that in the order passed by the Commissioner, it is clearly observed that the birth certificate was issued at Kawardha and similar observations have been made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). He would further argue that in the voter list of Mandla of the year 2011, the name of respondent No. 2 is present and a disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board of Mandla. He would lastly state that in the Patwari report, it is stated that respondent No. 2 is staying in her own house whereas she was staying in a rented house. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Gouraha, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Diwan. She would submit that respondent No. 2 applied for the license under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distribution Dealership which was granted in her favour in the year 2009 on the basis of domicile certificate submitted by her. She would further submit that the residence certificate was also issued by the -4- Tehsildar who is the competent authority. She would also submit that the petitioner has filed three separate petitions on the same cause of action and also misled this Court that the petitioner has not filed any other petition on the same issue. She would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Prajapati, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would endorse the submissions made by Ms. Gouraha. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Admittedly, the LPG Distribution Dealership was granted to respondent No.2 in the year 2009 on the basis of a domicile certificate submitted by her. The residence certificate was also issued by the competent authority. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Lormi. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the LPG Distribution dealership was granted to respondent No. 2 in the year 2009 and earlier, the petitions were filed by the petitioner and those petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, after 16 years, it would not be appropriate to interfere with such allotment of the dealership. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha