1 2026:CGHC:5178-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 96 of 2026 Mangal Prasad Shrivas S/o (Late) Shri R.D. Shrivas Aged About 68 Years R/o Palash 93, Raj Kishore Nagar, Sarkanda, Tah. And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mobile No. 9425543632 ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretory, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretory, Cooperative Dept., Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sunil Tiwari Joint Registrar/ Registrar, C.G. State Co-Operative Tribunal, Imli Para, Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.30 17:35:46 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 6011 of 2025 (Mangal Prasad Shrivas vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed a writ petition being WPC No. 6011 of 2025 seeking a direction to the respondents to decide the appellant’s representation dated 28.04.2025, which was made in the interest of effective administration of public services and lawful implementation of service rules in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that the said writ petition was taken up for consideration by this Court on 09.12.2025 and was disposed of on the same day, after receipt of reply only from respondent No. 4. Despite being competent State authorities, respondents No. 1 to 3 did not file any reply. The appellant had also 3 filed a rejoinder prior to disposal of the writ petition. 4. It is further contended that the appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2025 passed in WPC No. 6011 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on the basis of the submissions made by respondent No. 4, without due consideration of the material issues raised by the appellant. It is also submitted that no lawful or effective action has been taken by the respondents on the appellant’s representation dated 28.04.2025, which, according to the appellant, amounts to arbitrariness and unfair exercise of power. 5. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the appellant’s representation dated 28.04.2025 was not examined in accordance with settled legal principles and the applicable service rules. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration Rule 22 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. It is argued that respondent No. 4 admittedly did not obtain prior permission of the Government for contracting a second marriage, which constitutes a violation of the said Rules. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 failed to submit replies in WPC No. 1140 of 2022 and Contempt Case No. 3097 of 2024, which directly concerned him, yet submitted a reply in the present writ petition even prior to issuance of notice. According to the appellant, this conduct underscores the seriousness of the allegations raised in the representation dated 28.04.2025. It is also contended that the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Secretariat, 4 Cooperative Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which was based on the departmental inquiry report dated 04.04.2024, was placed before the learned Single Judge but was not properly appreciated. 6. It is further submitted that the appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the representation dated 28.04.2025 was neither duly considered by the respondents nor examined by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. The appellant claims to have been left remediless against the alleged arbitrary action and inaction of the respondents and asserts that no alternative efficacious remedy is available except approaching this Court. It is argued that bigamy constitutes a criminal offence under Indian law and that any citizen is entitled to bring such misconduct to the notice of the competent authority, particularly when the allegations are against a public servant, as such conduct undermines public trust. 7. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the inquiry conducted by respondents No. 1 to 3 pursuant to earlier writ proceedings was not considered by the learned Single Judge while adjudicating the present writ petition. It is contended that no reply was sought from respondents No. 1 to 3, who are the competent authorities. Therefore, dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of lack of locus standi is stated to be unsustainable, as the appellant was merely seeking enforcement of service rules and compliance with the directions of this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered in WPS No. 5452 of 2021 and the subsequent judgment in WA No. 41 of 2022, 5 wherein this Court held that the State, being a model employer, cannot refuse to consider a representation made by a citizen. It is submitted that the present case stands on identical footing and, therefore, the order dated 09.12.2025 deserves to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 opposed the appeal and contended that the learned Single Judge, after due consideration of the material available on record, has rightly dismissed the writ petition and that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully examined the pleadings and documents placed on record. 10. The appellant, along with the writ petition, placed on record a copy of the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by this Court in WPC No. 30947 of 2021 filed by one Vinay Shukla. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondents to conclude the proceedings initiated on the complaint made by Vinay Shukla. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report dated 04.04.2024 was submitted before the Secretary, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Thereafter, the State Government, vide order dated 30.01.2025, upon consideration of the inquiry report and the complaint alleging bigamy against respondent No. 4, passed a reasoned order closing the complaint on merits. 11. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings initiated on the complaint made by Vinay 6 Shukla, nor was he a party to WPC No. 30947 of 2021. The competent authority, on the basis of the said complaint, initiated proceedings, conducted a detailed inquiry, and, after due consideration of the inquiry report, arrived at a conclusion that the allegations lacked substance and accordingly closed the complaint by passing a detailed and reasoned order. Once a complaint on the same set of allegations has been duly examined and conclusively decided by the competent authority, initiation of another complaint or proceeding by a different person on identical allegations against the same individual is not permissible in law. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and legal position and has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan