1 CGHC010273612022 2026:CGHC:40222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3717 of 2022 1 - Anshul Goyal S/o Suresh Kumar Goyal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Fauji Gali, P.S. Bishrampur, Tehsil And District - Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Charan Singh Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Main Road Shivnandanpur, Bishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Finance Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sai Motors And Shriram Finance (Franchise) Raipur Pachmedi Naka Dhamtari Road Near Ramkrishna Hospital Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Ace Globe, 3rd Floor, Opposite Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited Cibil, Through Its Managing Director, Office At One Indiabulls Center, Tower 2A- 2B, 19th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharastra. RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities ignore and expunge the entries relating to Fake Loan transaction in which the Petitioner No. 1 is shown as borrower and the Petitioners No. 2 as the guarantor, from the CIBIL Score & Report and make good the CIBIL Score of the petitioners as early as possible, in the larger interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize all the bank transaction of the petitioners which got affected because of the CIBIL Score & Report containing entries relating to Fake Loan transaction in which the Petitioner No. 1 is shown as borrower and the Petitioners No. 2 as the guarantor. 10.3 Any other relief that this Hon'ble court may think fit be also granted in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' CIBIL scores have been adversely affected on account of a fake loan 3 transaction, wherein Petitioner No.1 has been shown as the borrower and Petitioner No.2 as the guarantor. It is submitted that the said transaction was already reported to the police, and a criminal writ petition in respect thereof is pending before this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the erroneous entries in the CIBIL report are adversely affecting the petitioners' business and banking transactions. He, therefore, prays for appropriate directions to the respondents to expunge the said entries from the CIBIL records and restore the petitioners' CIBIL scores. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State submits that respondent No.1 is a formal party and has been impleaded in the instant petition without seeking any relief against it. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4, being a Credit Information Company, merely acts as a repository of credit information furnished by the concerned credit institutions and has no authority to unilaterally modify, delete or add any credit information. Any correction can be made only upon certification by the concerned credit institution in terms of Section 21(3) of the CICRA, 2005. It is, therefore, submitted that no cause of action arises against respondent No.4 and it is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present petition. The petitioners, if aggrieved by the credit information, ought to approach the concerned credit institution in accordance with the statutory remedy. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 6. It appears from the service report that respondent No.2, namely, Sai Motors and Shriram Finance (Franchise), Raipur, was being run by one Sanjay Agrawal. It further appears from the notice placed on record that the said Sanjay Agrawal has since expired. The petitioner has also averred in paragraph 8.2 of the petition that the said Sanjay Agrawal was an authorised insurer of Shriram Finance. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the fact that the person who was running respondent No.2 has since expired and there being no sufficient material available on record before this Court to effectively adjudicate the grievance raised by the petitioner on its merits, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner would be appropriately considered by the competent authority. 8. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. The nature of the grievance raised and the relief sought require examination on facts, which cannot appropriately be undertaken in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to enquire into the grievance raised by the petitioner and pass an appropriate and reasoned order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. Since the matter is pending since the year 2022, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.4 within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such appearance, respondent No.4 shall consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner, in accordance with 5 law, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 12.With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. 13.Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi