1 CGHC010363342024 2026:CGHC:36889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5391 of 2024 Sarswati Dansena W/o Rakesh Raman Dansena, Aged About 49 Years R/o Kalarpara, Gudipara, Ward No.01 Sariya, Nagar Panchayat- Sariya , District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Dist- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Engineer Urban Administration And Development Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Sariya, Sariya, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - Supertech Solutions, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - L.S Metatech Private Limited Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Majid Khan (Earlier Posted At Relevant Point Of Time As ) Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Sariya , Sariya , District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.6 & 7 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.8 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.18 17:27:38 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 18.08.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner, an elected Councillor from Ward No.01 of Nagar Panchayat, Sariya, has called in question the inaction of the respondent authorities in not taking appropriate action upon her complaints alleging serious irregularities and arbitrariness in the issuance and allotment of work for installation of street light poles, despite the proposed construction of Gaurav Path in the area. The petitioner has also sought a direction for an independent enquiry into the alleged irregularities and for appropriate action against the erring officials. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for records pertaining to case of the petitioner. 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to decide and take suitable action upon the complaint preferred by the petitioner against the concerned authorities. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Courts may kindly direct the respondent authorities for taking action against concerned respondent officials, upon the complaint of petitioner, respondents may be made subject to enquiry for their unwarranted and erroneous actions, by constituting an independent enquiring body / committee, in the interest of justice. 10.4. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being an elected representative, has consistently raised issues concerning the welfare of the residents of her ward and has brought to the notice of the competent authorities the alleged illegalities committed in the allotment of the aforesaid work. It is submitted that despite the complaints preferred by the petitioner and other Councillors, and despite an enquiry committee having been constituted, the work was hurriedly allotted to selected contractors without awaiting the outcome of the enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that the installation of street light poles was wholly unwarranted in view of the proposed construction of Gaurav Path and that the expenditure of public funds on such work, which is likely to become redundant, warrants an independent enquiry and appropriate action against the concerned officials. 3 Per contra, learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the present petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is contended that on an identical grievance and arising out of the same cause of action, W.P.(C) No.3506/2024 (Sharad Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) was already considered and dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 243, holding that a person who is not a competitive bidder in the tender process cannot ordinarily maintain a challenge thereto. Learned State counsel further submits that the very 4 complaint relied upon by the petitioner had already been subjected to a detailed enquiry by a duly constituted committee comprising the Tahsildar, Sariya, Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Sariya, Sub-Engineers of the Municipal Council, CSEB and PWD, Sariya, and the committee, after examining the relevant material, found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. In support of his submissions, learned State counsel places reliance upon paragraph 5 of the return filed on behalf of the State, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “5. It would be pertinent to submit here that the complaint made by the petitioner was under consideration before this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 3506/2024 as Annexure P/6 at Page No. 26, wherein, an enquiry was conducted by the duly constituted inquiry team consisting of Tahsildar, Sariya; Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Sariya; Sub Engineer, Municipal Council, Sariya; Sub Engineer CSEB, Sariya & Sub Engineer, PWD, Sariya. The said inquiry committee has submitted its report that the complaint made by the petitioner is untrue. Copy of the letter dated 05.03.2024 alongwith inquiry report is filed herewith as ANNEXURE R/2.” 4 Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has already been enquired into by the competent authority and no further enquiry or direction, as sought in the present petition, is warranted. On these submissions, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the petition. 5 5 Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 and 7, while adopting and concurring with the submissions advanced by learned State counsel, submits that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 Upon perusal of the record and consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the complaint raised by the petitioner has already been considered and examined by a duly constituted five-member enquiry committee. The said committee, after examining the allegations and relevant material, has submitted its report dealing with the various aspects of the complaint and has not found substance in the allegations raised by the petitioner. 8 It is also not in dispute that the very grievance forming the subject matter of the present petition had earlier been considered by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3506/2024, which came to be decided by order dated 27.09.2024. In the said proceedings, the enquiry report submitted by the duly constituted committee was already brought on record. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioner seeking a direction for conducting a fresh enquiry into the same allegations cannot be granted, particularly when the complaint has already been enquired into by the competent committee and a report has been submitted thereon. 6 9 If the petitioner is aggrieved by the findings or conclusions recorded in the enquiry report, it shall be open to her to assail the same before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would not be justified in directing a fresh enquiry merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the outcome of an enquiry already conducted by a duly constituted committee. 10 In view of the aforesaid observations, no further relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to her in accordance with law, if so advised. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh