Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8774 (CHH)

NITIN SINGHVI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/1182/2021 · 2025-07-17

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:34314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1182 of 2021 1 - Nitin Singhvi S/o Late N. C. Singhvi Aged About 59 Years Office M I G- 59, Sector 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer- In- Chief Public Works Department, P W D Nirman Bhawan North Block Sector 19, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Raipur Zone, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Raipur Zone, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Raipur Zone, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Adv. For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 18-07-2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities have enhanced the height of road in front of petitioner’s house which has adverse impact on ingress and egress. He further submits that earlier, this issue was raised in WPPIL No. 6 of 2018 and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 16.01.2018 permitted the petitioners therein to make representation before the competent authorities i.e. Public Works Department. He contends that petitioner made various representations pursuant to the order passed in WPPIL No. 6 of 2018 but they have not been considered yet. He prays for a direction to respondent authorities to take appropriate steps on the representations made by petitioner. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 3) Heard. 4) Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by petitioner, this petition is hereby being disposed of directing respondent authorities to decide the pending representations so moved by the petitioner expeditiously. 5) With the aforesaid direction(s), this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.21 10:16:43 +0530