1 2026:CGHC:26941 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1889 of 2023 Ganesh Ram Dhurve S/o Mansha Ram Dhurve Aged About 55 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Buchipara, Police Station And Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog The Secretary, C.G. Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, 61 Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 3 - Hotel Singh Dhurve Caste Gond, R/o Amera, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4 - Lakhan Dhurve Caste Gond, R/o Kui, Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 5 - Pancharam Caste Gond, R/o Kukdur, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 6 - Charan Singh Caste Gond, R/o Birainbah, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shashikant Chauhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.01 18:13:30 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in initiating appropriate proceedings against respondent Nos. 3 to 6 for allegedly subjecting the petitioner to social boycott in violation of the Chhattisgarh Restriction of Social Boycott Act, 2016, despite repeated complaints and proceedings initiated by the authorities. The petitioner further seeks appropriate directions for enforcement of the provisions of the Act, 2016, protection against the alleged acts of social boycott and coercion by respondent Nos. 3 to 6, and consequential reliefs. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and directed the respondent no. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondent no. 3 to 6 in connection with notice dated 11.01.2021 and 26.11.2021 as early as possible, in the interest of justice looking to the continuous social boycott of the petitioner. 10.3 That the respondent no. 3 to 6 may also be directed not to force the petitioner to keep Smt. Chameli Bai in the home of petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to consider and decide his application/complaint, which has remained pending since 11.01.2021, within a time-bound period. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that upon verification, it was found that the petitioner had not been subjected to social boycott and the enquiry report has already been received by the competent authority. It is, however, submitted that the competent authority shall pass an appropriate final order on the petitioner's pending application/complaint within a period of 45 days. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner's application/complaint is stated to be pending since 11.01.2021, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No. 1/Ayog to consider and decide the said application/complaint strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and the competent authority shall decide the matter independently on the basis of the material available on record. 4 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh