1 CGHC010404172022 2026:CGHC:37100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9093 of 2022 1 - Ku. Preeti Shrivastava D/o Late Shri Awadhesh Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 62 Years Advocate, R/o Banspara, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Special Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Registrar, Chhattisgarh Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Behind Bus Stand (Old Bus Depo No. 1 Premises), Pandri, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Arvind Singh Parihar S/o Ajeet Singh Parihar, R/o B-258, Sector - 4 Kamal Vihar Near Science City, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kumari Rupa Sharma D/o Late Shri Sureshchandra Sharma R/o Ramsagarpara (Shiv Chowk), Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri T.L. Bareth, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19/08/2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting-aside/ quashing the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 Annexure P/1 so far as it relates to selection of respondents no. 3 & 4 and further be pleased to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Member of District Commission, Dhamtari. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed as Members of the District Commission, Dhamtari, contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement. He would submit that the petitioner has made various representations before respondent No. 1, but no decision has been taken thereon till date. He would further contend that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 1 and, in turn, the said authority may be directed to decide the same expeditiously. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed as Members of the Commission vide order dated 28.11.2022 for a period of four years, and their tenure is about to expire in November 2026. Thus, they would submit that the present petition has become infructuous. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 3 5. Having considered the facts of the present case, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 1. In turn, the concerned authority is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of such representation. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present writ petition is disposed of. SD/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi