1 2026:CGHC:25729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2185 of 2022 • Smt. Rekha Singh W/o Shri Dinesh Singh, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Dheka Indira Aawas, Post Darrighat, P.S. Torva, Tahsil And, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Transport Commissioner, Office Of The Transport Commissioner, Indravati Bhavan, 3rd Floor, C-Block, Atal Nagar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Regional Transport Officer, Office Of The Regional Transport (Rto) Lagra, Bilaspur, Tahsil And, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take action in accordance with law against the responsible officer/employee of respondent No.3 on the basis of inquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer (Annexure-P/12) to the respondent No.2. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities on the basis of inquiry report (Annexure-P/12) to compensate Rs.20 Lakhs with interest to the petitioner because of the loss suffered by her. 10.3 That, any other reliefs which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice..” 3. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner aggrieved by not taking action regarding change of address of her vehicle by RTO Bilaspur, earlier she has filed a complaint in Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Bilaspur Forum, Bilaspur and District Consumer Redressal respectively; but the same has been withdrawn/dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, in May, 2019, petitioner again made complaint before the respondent No.1 and in turn respondent No.2 directed Shri Sapan Choudhary, Dy S.P. to inquire into the case of petitioner, who conducted inquiry and found that the applicant had applied for change of address in the month of May, 2014 by paying quarterly tax for 03 months after purchasing vehicle No.UP72D 9001 to earn his livelihood and bringing it to Bilaspur from Pratapgarh. Whereas, quarterly tax was paid till June, 2014. After about one and a half year respondent No.3 issued information regarding registration of change of address vide date 13.01.2016. During the said period of about one and a half year, the vehicle could not operated due to lack of change of address of the applicant's vehicle, due to which the applicant could not earn livelihood for him and his family. Subsequently, after the change of address, applicant was told that Rs.2,64,918.00 is outstanding as tax as on 31.07.2019. No reminder letters have been issued by respondent No.3 since the letter issued on 26.05.2014 after the application regarding change of address of the applicant. The original file of the said vehicle is not available in the office, therefore, the case of registering the change of address of the petitioner, the then concerned 3 branch in-charge of the RTO, Bilaspur seems to be showing a prima facie introduction of negligence and irresponsible attitude towards duty by taking no interest. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is seeking compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs, on account of deliberate action of the respondent authorities by which the change of address in the registration document could not be done for a period one and half year. Today itself, reply is filed and the concerned officer was directed to remain present before this Court and he has submitted that from perusal of the document, it appears that one Prem Narayan Gupta, who was the Section In-charge was entrusted with the file, however, due to his inaction the file could not be traced at that point of time, and therefore, the petitioner was again requested to submit Form No.33 required as per the Rule 59 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989 along with the certificate of the registration. Petitioner submitted the Form No.33 on 04.01.2016 and without any further delay the application was verified on 13.01.2016 and necessary orders has already been passed. 5. Learned State counsel submits that if petitioner is aggrieved by any delay, it is attributable to the said Prem Narayan Gupta and for that petitioner has to seek remedy of compensation while filing appropriate civil dispute before the concerned Civil Court, so far as the writ jurisdiction is concerned. Since the petitioner has not made him as party respondent therein. Further, in the inquiry, respondent/RTO has already held that it was the responsibility of the concerned in-charge, who has not taken interest. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, no case is made out for grant of relief as prayed by the petitioner, the instant writ petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected. However, petitioner is at liberty to file civil suit, if he so desires in respect of compensation before the concerned court. So far as the present form of the petition is concerned after submission of the reply. 4 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Deepti Jha