2026:CGHC:2361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6123 of 2025 1 - Gram Panchayat Mohgaon Through Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mohgaon, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Hirmat Bai Dhruw W/o Late Pawan Kumar Dhruw Aged About 26 Years Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Mohgaon, R/o Village Mohgaon, Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Govinddeo Agarwal S/o Late Ram Gopal Agrawal Aged About 74 Years R/o A-205, Maruti Solitaire, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 4 - Palchand Sonwani S/o Sadhram Aged About 52 Years Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojana, Dutiya Charan Karya Sambag Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Engineer Water Resource Department, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Opposite Ghandi Udyan, Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition assailing order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi Jalasay Pariyojna, Second Stage Work, Division Raipur, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 06.08.2024 passed by this urt in Writ Petition Civil No. 3523/2024 wherein following order has passed :- “5. From the submission made by learned counsel for parties as also documents placed in record, it appears that construction of canal over the disputed patch of land of village Mohgaon is yet to be started. Construction of canal is a job to be done by technical experts like Engineers in the field. Even if submission of learned State Counsel is that the project has been planned after getting technical assessment and alignment, which is required for construction of canal, but the construction is yet to start over the portion of the land of village Mohgaon. Petitioners submitted representation not to the competent authority but to the concerned Minister, as reflecting from the documents, and the same is still pending consideration, as stated by learned counsel for petitioners. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting petitioners to submit fresh representation before the respondent No.1 as well the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balodabazar within a period of two weeks from today. In case, petitioners submit such representation, respondent No.1 as also Executive Engineer, WRD, Balodabazar shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation.” 2. From a bare perusal of the petition, it is quite evident that Gram Panchayat, Mohgaon has been arrayed as petitioner No. 1 without disclosing under what authority or capacity it has instituted the present petition. In absence of any pleading explaining its locus standi, the petition, so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, is not maintainable. 3. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 is the Sarpanch of the village. However, the petition does not disclose as to how any of the fundamental rights of petitioner No. 2 have been infringed. In absence of any such averment or ground, the petition, so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, is also not maintainable. 4. So far as petitioners No. 3 and 4 are concerned, it appears that their personal interests are allegedly affected, and in order to give colour of public interest, they have attempted to take assistance of petitioners No. 1 and 2. As such, this Court is of the view that petitioners No. 3 and 4 are not bona fide litigants. 5. Further, from the facts projected by the petitioners, it is evident that the State Government has undertaken construction of a canal under the Rajeev Gandhi Sanwardhan Scheme (Samoda Diversion) in accordance with a survey conducted as far back as 2007, pursuant to which a Detailed Project Report (DPR) was prepared. After finalisation of the DPR, the programme and map were approved, and thereafter the canal construction work was commenced. From the very inception, the petitioners have been objecting to the construction of the canal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that if the canal is constructed in a straight alignment, water retention would be higher and would be more beneficial to the public at large. On this ground, an earlier writ petition was filed and pursuant to directions issued therein, a representation was submitted. It is contended that the said representation has been rejected by the respondents without proper inquiry, rendering the impugned order illegal and liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel, opposing the submissions, would submit that after an in-depth study and examination, the DPR has been finalised by experts in the field. It is further submitted that it is a settled position of law that courts should refrain from interfering in matters involving expert opinion and places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., (2022) 11 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that pure policy decisions of the Government are ordinarily not amenable to judicial interference unless they suffer from manifest illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety. It is further submitted that the petitioners are causing hindrance in execution of the project, resulting in escalation of cost and financial burden on the public exchequer. Accordingly, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Whether the canal should be constructed in a straight or curved alignment falls squarely within the domain of experts. The project is being executed after finalisation of the Detailed Project Report, which is based on expert assessment. In absence of any cogent material brought on record to demonstrate arbitrariness or illegality, this Court cannot interfere in matters involving technical expertise. Moreover, due to filing of the present writ petition, the project work has been stalled, thereby causing financial burden on the public exchequer. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them also does not merit acceptance. Construction of the canal have not infringed any fundamental rights of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merits. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.01.15 17:47:13 +0530