1 2026:CGHC:26786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3308 of 2026 Percival Pramod Kumar Purty Son Of Pramod Purty, Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Ward No.03, Tikrapara, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh At Present Address -House No.206, Ward No. 01, Acholi, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer, Dongargarh , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 5 - Sangeeta Thakre, Wife Of Late Devidas Thakre, Resident Of Ward No.03 Tikrapara, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Netam, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.03 15:50:47 +0530 2 01/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs : (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner’s case. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direction to the concerned respondent authorities to take appropriate legal action against culprit persons and to grant compensation on account of illegal detention in jail to him, damaged the property and missing jewelry articles and mentally harassment, at the earliest, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed seeking appropriate legal action against the respondent authorities as well as the private culprits. He submits that the petitioner was a tenant of respondent No.5, from whose premises he was evicted without taking recourse to the due process of law. He submits that a complaint was made before the concerned Police Station, however, the concerned Police Officers acted in favour of respondent No.5. He submits that the concerned Police Officials are hand in glove with the said respondent, as a result of which the petitioner was kept in jail for three days. He further submits that the petitioner seeks grant of compensation on account of illegal detention in jail, damage to property, loss of jewellery articles and mental harassment. He lastly submits the petitioner was dispossessed of the tenanted premises in an illegal 3 and arbitrary manner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that this petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy and must approach the concerned authorities by filing an appropriate complaint or pursuing other legal remedies available under the law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as also considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the relief sought by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance raised involves disputed questions of fact. Such matters are required to be adjudicated before the competent Civil and Criminal Courts. 6. It is trite law that where disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot ordinarily be invoked. 7. Consequently, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate civil or criminal remedies as may be available under the law in respect of his claims. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay