1 2026:CGHC:19693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1948 of 2026 Damyanti Mandal W/o Manoj Soni Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 531/54, Godawari Nagar, Boriya, Khurd, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment Mahanadi Bhavan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 3 - Sub Division Magistrate (Sdm), Revenue Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Yashraj Cinema Through Pankaj Maheshwari Partner Nandai District Rajnandgaon C.G.. ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate. For the State : Mr. RK Gupta, Addl AG. For the Caveator : Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 28.04.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: 2 “10. RELIEF SOUGHT: i. To direct the Respondent No.2 for deciding the Complaint dated 10th March 2025 and Report dated 17th February 2026 Of Respondent No.3 expeditiously. ii. Pass any other relief order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court dees fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner had filed a complaint on 10th March 2025 before various concerned Department/Authority against the violation done by respondent No.4/Yashraj Cinema while getting the License for operating a Cinema, in which, respondent No.3/Sub-Divisional Magistrate had prepared a report Annexure P-2 dated 17th February 2026 specifically affirming the violations undertaken by respondent No.4. Surprisingly, respondent No.2 takes note of alleged complaint of petitioner, but completely snubs respondent No.3’s report and its effect on the decision to grant the License to respondent No.4 for Operating the Cinema. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to respondent No.2/Collector to consider and decide the complaint filed by him, as respondent No.4 has obtained the licence for operating the Cinema Hall, which was not in accordance with law, though respondent No.3/SDM has prepared a report dated 17th February 2026 holding that there are 3 violations committed by respondent No.4, furthermore respondent No.2/Collector has also taken note of the same, however, no adverse action has been taken against respondent No.4, as such, petitioner has came-up before this with aforesaid prayer/reliefs. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the concerned Collector will consider the complaint of the petitioner and pass appropriate order as per applicable law. 5. Learned counsel for the Caveator submits that licence has been issued to respondent No.4 for operating the Cinam hall as per law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 7. Complainant/petitioner has made specific complaint about violation committed by respondent No.4, who has applied for licence to run a Cinema Hall as there is no mandatory basement or parking facilities and prescribed minimum space is also not available; further there are encroachment upon the government land (grass land) in order to construct an excess road. The concerned Collector received a complaint as filed by the petitioner and while taken the cognizance upon the same, has issued a letter dated 05th February 2026 directing respondent No.3 to conduct an inquiry and submit a report regarding the allegation as levelled against respondent No.4 by the present petitioner. Vide its report dated 17th February 2026, respondent No.3 has confirmed that there are major violation in operating the Cinema Hall, however, the concerned Collector despite having knowledge about said report/violation is not acting 4 upon the same and complaint of petitioner is not been considered and decided. 8. For the foregoing observations/discussions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of directing respondent No.2/Collector to consider the complaint of petitioner and to pass appropriate order in accordance with relevant law/rules and also keeping in mind the enquiry as conducted by respondent No.3/SDM and his report Annexure P-2 dated 17th February 2026, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to respondent No.4 and if required the petitioner may also be given opportunity of hearing while adjudicating the matter concerned. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.