1 2026:CGHC:21373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3962 of 2026 Md. Shahbaz Siddiqui S/o Abdul Rab Siddiqai Aged About 33 Years R/o Block No..115, Camp 1 Ward No. 20, Azad Mohalla Supela, Bhilai Distt. Durg (C.G.) . Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through Secretary Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Megha Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 07/05/2026 1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application dated 25.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner and release the amount of mediclaim of the petitioner. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.05.08 13:06:32 +0530 2 ii. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Constable and presently posted at Reserve Police Centre, Rajnandgaon. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from serious ailments during pregnancy and was admitted for treatment at Ahmedabad, Gujarat and the newly born child of the petitioner was also under treatment there. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs.3,55,014/- towards treatment of his wife and child and thereafter submitted an application dated 25.04.2026 before the competent authority seeking reimbursement/mediclaim amount, however, till date no action has been taken thereupon. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the application submitted by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the competent authority and no final decision has yet been taken thereupon. He would further submit that without awaiting any response from the authorities and within a short span of time, the petitioner has hurriedly approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition and, therefore, the same is premature and not maintainable at this stage. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 5. From the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner submitted the application dated 25.04.2026 before the competent 3 authority seeking release of mediclaim/reimbursement amount and, without awaiting any decision thereupon, has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition within a short span of time. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority or that the respondents have refused to consider the same. 6. It is well settled that when a representation/application submitted by a petitioner is pending consideration before the competent authority and no final decision has yet been taken thereupon, ordinarily a writ petition seeking direct relief would not be maintainable unless exceptional circumstances are made out. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstance has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the application submitted by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the competent authority and no final decision has yet been taken thereupon, the present Writ Petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed as premature, with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, if his application is not decided within a reasonable period. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/