1 CGHC010280402026 2026:CGHC:32156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3884 of 2026 1 - Pradeep Kumar Saluja S/o Late Indrasen Saluja Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 28, Indira Nagar, Bada Bazar, Chirimiri, District - Manendragarh - Chirimiri -Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Nagriya Prashasan Vibhag, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, C.G. 2 - District Collector, District Manendragarh -Chirimiri -Bharatpur, C.G. 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Chirimiri, District Manendragarh - Chirimiri -Bharatpur, C.G. 4 - Executive Engineer / Superintending Engineer , Municipal Corporation Chirimiri, District Manendragarh -Chirimiri -Bharatpur, C.G. 5 - Shri Rahul Bhai Patel (Contractor), S/o Raju Bhai Patel, Ward No. 34, Purana Godaripara, Chirimiri, District Manendragarh -Chirimiri -Bharatpur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.07.31 10:50:11 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 Hon’ble High Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ. order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 2 (District Collector) to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's 29.11.2023, representations/complaints dated 12.02.2026, 04.05.2026, 25.05.2026, 03.06.2026, and 12.06.2026, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 Hon’ble High Court may graciously be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 (District Collector) to constitute an independent Enquiry Committee, comprising senior officers from a department other than the Municipal the Public Works Corporation Chirimiri (such Department or a Technical Expert Agency), to conduct a thorough technical and financial audit of the CC Road in Ward No. 28, under Work Order No. 310 dated 22.09.2023, and to submit a report to the District Collector within a stipulated time frame. 10.3 Hon’ble High Court may graciously be pleased to direct respondent No. 2 (District Collector) that upon receipt of the Enquiry Report, he shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, including but not limited to: a) Recovery of the amount paid for the sub- standard work, if found liable; b) Initiaion of disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials, if found liable; c) Referring the matter to the appropriate investigating agency (Police/Anti-Corruption Bureau) for criminal action, if a prima facie case of corruption, cheating, or criminal misappropriation is made out. 3 d) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the continuous failure of the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's repeated complaints regarding the deplorable condition of the road has resulted in a continuing violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner is compelled to use a broken and unsafe road on a daily basis, thereby jeopardizing his life and personal safety, which constitutes an infringement of his right to life under Article 21. He further submits that the inaction and apathy on the part of the respondents in not properly considering and deciding the grievances raised by the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is argued that the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory obligations under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which casts a duty upon them to consider and dispose of the complaints submitted by citizens in accordance with law. It is next submitted that despite repeated representations and complaints made by the petitioner over the last two and a half years, the respondents have neither passed any reasoned and speaking order nor communicated any decision thereon. The persistent inaction of the respondents has compelled the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the 4 Constitution of India. He also submits that the petitioner has exhausted all efficacious administrative remedies available to him and, since no decision has been communicated by the respondents, the cause of action continues to subsist. 3. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. He next contends that he has no objection to the relief clause 10.1 as prayed by the petitioner. He further submits that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the Municipal Corporation has been taking necessary steps from time to time in accordance with the availability of funds, administrative exigencies, and the priorities fixed for developmental works. He also submits that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek a direction for execution of a particular development work as the maintenance and construction of public roads are matters of administrative policy and budgetary allocation within the domain of the Municipal Corporation. It is, therefore, further contended that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the limited relief sought by the petitioner in Clause 10.01 of the writ petition deserves to be granted. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the representations/complaints submitted by the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after examining the grievances raised therein, expeditiously, preferably within a stipulated period. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. However, if the petitioner's grievance regarding the road work allegedly not having been executed by the concerned contractor is found to be substantiated, the concerned authority i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju