1 CGHC010127912023 2026:CGHC:31971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1803 of 2023 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Its Territory Manager (Retail) Raipur Shramik Panchal S/o Poonamchand Panchal Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, First Floor, Shaheed Veer Narayan Bhawan Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Opposite Collectorate, Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector (Food) Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - M/s Sardar Rawal Singh And Sons, Through Its Partner Mohinder Pal Singh Bhatia, R/o Pulgaon Naka, G.E. Road, Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Mohinder Pal Singh Bhatia, Partner Of M/s Sardar Rawal Singh And Sons, R/o Pulgaon Naka, G.E. Road, Durg Chhattisgarh. 8 - Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Partner Of M/s Sardar Rawal Singh And Sons, R/o Pulgaon Naka, G.E. Road, Durg Chhattisgarh. 9 - Smt. Maninder Kaur Partner Of M/s Sardar Rawal Singh And Sons, R/o Pulgaon Naka, G.E. Road, Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.29 09:54:54 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 5 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents No.6 to 9 : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Intervenor : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the alleged inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in not taking any action against the private respondents for the alleged forceful demolition of the petitioner's retail outlet and consequential damage to the structures and petroleum installations situated over the leased land. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ, writs, order, direction restraining the respondent No. 6 to 9 not to mishandle the petroleum products stored in a underground storage tank without statutory permission. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ. writs, order, direction to the respondent No. 1 to 5 to take statutory action against the private respondents for forceful demolition of public property and to take appropriate action as per law by deciding the representation/complaint (Annexure-P/6). 3 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ. writs, order, orders as deem fit with cost of the litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressing the present petition only for a limited relief. It is submitted that the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit against respondent Nos.6 to 9 seeking declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, wherein an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) is also pending consideration. It is further submitted that, pending consideration of the said application, respondent Nos.6 to 9 be restrained from causing any further damage to the subject land and the existing structures standing thereon, which are under a valid lease in favour of the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 9 submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has already approached the competent Civil Court by filing a civil suit seeking substantially the same relief and the matter is pending adjudication. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner ought to pursue its remedies before the Civil Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit against respondent Nos.6 to 9 seeking declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is pending consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the disputes involved are essentially disputed questions of fact, which can appropriately be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the petitioner is relegated to avail its remedies before the said Court where the proceedings are already pending. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9 submits that the next date fixed before the competent Civil Court is 17.08.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is still pending consideration before the said Court. 7. Since this Court had, by interim order dated 18.04.2023, restrained respondent Nos.6 to 9 from causing any further damage to the subject land and the existing structures thereon, it would be appropriate to direct the competent Civil Court to consider and decide the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the next date of hearing or within such reasonable time as may be deemed fit. 5 8. Till the decision of the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the competent Civil Court, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2023, whereby respondent Nos.6 to 9 were restrained from making any further damage to the subject land and the existing structures standing thereon, shall continue to remain in force. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh