1 2026:CGHC:10173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 223 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Sarthi S/o Late Shyamlal Sarthi Aged About 55 Years R/o Gali No. 8, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Amlidih Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Cultural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Directorate Of Culture And Official Language Through Its Director, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor, Sector - 27, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Through Its Secretary, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Vivek Acharya Director, Culture And Official Language, Commercial Complex, Sector - 27, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Pratap Parakh - Deputy Director Archaeology, Guru Ghasidas Museum, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6. Sarva Aadiwasi Samaj, Sitapur Through - Its President Namely Shri Sushil Maravi, Address Kujur Bhawan, Near Aparn Printers, Imlitikiya, Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Res No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, GA. For Res No.3 : Mr. Pragalbha Shrama, Advocate. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.02.28 10:21:53 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 27/02/2026 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure-P- 5) passed in Misc. Case No.51/2024 by the respondent No.3. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the State Government i.e. respondent No.1 to properly enquire the matter and if found no requisite evidence of program has been submitted by the respondent No.3 then recover the amount of grant sanctioned to the respondent No.6 with interest. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest the justice." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered Artist in the State of Chhattisgarh who performs in various programs organized by the State. On 09.08.2022, on the occasion of World Tribal Day, respondent No.6 organized two programs for which the Government has paid sums of Rs.7 Lakhs and Rs.5 Lakhs, respectively. He further submits that while claiming the said amounts, respondent No.6 was required to submit supporting documentation i.e. photographs, bills, vouchers and pen drives etc. related to the programs. However, when information was obtained by the petitioner through RTI, it was revealed that the said amounts were released in favour of respondent No.6 without filing of the aforesaid mandatory documents. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog (respondent No. 3). After calling of a report from respondent No. 1, the Lok Ayog registered the complaint as Misc. Case No. 51/2024, however, the case was subsequently dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-P/5). 3 3. In response, learned State counsel submits that during the enquiry into the petitioner’s complaint, a detailed report was submitted by respondent No. 1 where it is specifically mentioned that earlier, pursuant to the petitioner's complaint, he had been provided the relevant documents. However, initially due to non-availability of pendrive it was not provided, but subsequently the pendrive related to program was obtained. In light of such facts, the Lok Ayog found the complaint to be baseless and accordingly rejected the same. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the submission made by learned State counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the instant petition, the petitioner has not stated as to when he filed his complaint to respondent No.1 and which documents were provided to him. His main grievance is that the funds were released to respondent No.6 without the submission of photographs, bills, vouchers, or pen drives etc. which are essential evidence to prove the organization of cultural program. Under such circumstances, without going on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the petition reserving the liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an application before respondent No.1 to obtain the relevant documents concerning the organization of cultural program by respondent No.6. Thereafter, the petitioner may take further recourse in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay