1 2026:CGHC:21210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2249 of 2026 1 - Ashwani Kumar S/o Bharat Kumar Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Bhimpuri, Chowki- Junapara, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Sub Division Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Mahendra Jaiswal S/o Ghanaram Jaiswal Society Manager, Paddy Procurement Center, Junapara, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Adiwasi Sewa Sahkari Samity Junapara Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Through Its President Adiwasi Sewa Sahkari Samity Junapara, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/05/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records with regard to above illegal act of the respondent no. 6, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent higher authorities to take immediate strict legal action the respondent no.6 for his above illegal act. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to provide any other relief to the petitioners deemed fit on the fact and circumstances of the instant case may also be granted” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner has filed the present petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in taking action against respondent No. 6, who is 3 stated to be working as Society Manager of the Paddy Procurement Center, Junapara. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 6 was involved in purchasing substandard and rotten paddy from farmers through improper means. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a written complaint dated 20.01.2025 before respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is further stated that prior to the said complaint, the Naib Tahsildar, Takhatpur (respondent No. 5), had conducted an enquiry into the alleged irregularities and prepared a report dated 03.01.2025 recommending strict legal action against respondent No. 6. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 also conducted an enquiry and submitted a report/memorandum dated 09.01.2025, affirming the allegations and recommending action against respondent No. 6. Despite the aforesaid reports, no action has been taken by the competent authority against respondent No. 6, which has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against respondent No. 6 stand substantiated by the enquiry reports dated 03.01.2025 and 09.01.2025 submitted by the competent authorities themselves. Despite clear findings and recommendations for action, the higher authorities have failed to take any steps, thereby shielding respondent No. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already approached the 4 authorities by way of a detailed complaint dated 20.01.2025; however, no decision has been taken on the same till date. Such inaction on the part of the authorities is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that appropriate directions be issued to the concerned authorities to consider and decide the complaint of the petitioner within a time-bound manner. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to consideration of a complaint by the competent authority, and if this Court deems it appropriate, a direction may be issued to the concerned authority to decide the same in accordance with law within a stipulated time. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the limited grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-consideration of the complaint dated 20.01.2025 submitted before the competent authorities. 6. Considering the nature of the dispute and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to consider and decide the complaint made by the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the authorities shall be at liberty to consider and decide the matter on its own merits. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge