1 2026:CGHC:27415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 595 of 2026 1 - Sharda Gore W/o Lekhram Gore Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sikandar Dewangan S/o Shiv Kumar Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Vikash Sahu S/o Lekhram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Anil Rai S/o Ambika Rai Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Shyamu Sahu S/o Dauvaram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Toman Sahu S/o Late Pitamber Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 7 - Dhaneshwar Sahu S/o Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 8 - Dhaleshwar Sahu S/o Pooran Lal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 9 - Rajkumar Deshmukh S/o Dakwar Deshmukh Aged About 37 Years R/o Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.04 11:30:32 +0530 2 Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 10 - Revtiraman S/o Late Govind Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 11 - Manju Vaishnav D/o Late Dhruv Vaishnav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 12 - Kishan Deshmukh S/o Late Chetram Deshmukh Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Anjora (Kha), District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Anjora (Kha), Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Sohan Lal Deshmukh S/o Roshan Lal Deshmukh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 7 - Sukhdev Yadav S/o Bisauha Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Anjora (Kha), Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate. For Res No.1 and 2/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG with Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Advocate. 3 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 03/07/2026 1. This MCC has been filed for the recalling of the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.728/2026 (Sohan Lal Desmukh and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant (private respondents therein) submits that the subject shops were allotted to the applicants by the Gram Panchayat on lease for 11 months under the provisions of Section 65 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth the "Adhiniyam 1993"). He further submits that a resolution was also passed on 13.08.2024 by the Gram Panchayat Anjora (ख), Janpad Panchayat Durg, and an agreement was executed between the Gram Panchayat and the applicants (respondents therein). He submits that since the petitioners in WPC No. 728/2026 were deprived of getting said lease, they preferred the said writ petition out of personal and political vengeance. Hence, the order dated 19.02.2026 was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicants, and even notices were not issued to them, as a result of which the applicants are substantially affected. Counsel also informs that the applicants had earlier filed Writ Appeal No.453/2026 challenging the impugned order, which was subsequently withdrawn before the learned Division Bench, where liberty was granted to take recourse to law before the learned Single Bench, i.e., this Court. In view of the such submissions, he prays that the order dated 19.02.2026 may be recalled and the original writ petition be disposed of after providing a due opportunity of hearing to both parties. 4 3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel fairly submits that the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 was passed without notice to the applicants (respondents therein). However, he contends that this Court has not passed any substantial order affecting the applicants, rather, only a direction has been given to respondents No.2 and 3 to take appropriate steps in respect of the enquiry report in accordance with law. Hence, he prays that this MCC may be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Undisputedly, vide order dated 19.02.2026 passed in WPC No.728/2026, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and only a direction was given to respondents No.2 and 3 therein to take steps in respect of the concerned enquiry report dated 16.10.2024 in accordance with law. 6. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, the subject shops were allotted after the passing of a resolution by the Gram Panchayat Anjora (ख), Durg, and an agreement was also executed by the Gram Panchayat, which was not brought before this Court, therefore, if such order is complied with and any action is taken against the applicants herein (respondents therein), it would affect the rights vested in them by virtue of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and the agreement executed between the parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made in the instant MCC for the recalling of the impugned order. 5 8. Consequently, the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No. 728/2026 (Sohan Lal Desmukh and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) is hereby recalled. 9. The Registry is directed to restore the aforesaid writ petition and list the case before the Bench having the roster. 10. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay