1 CGHC010352242026 2026:CGHC:41510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4621 of 2026  Navin Chandra Tiwari Nand Kishor Tiwari, Aged About 55 Years R/o Rangila Chowk -Ramanujganj, P.S. And Tahsil -Ramanujaganj Distt -Balrampur -Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through The Secretary Department Of Road Transport And Highways, Zone -4 Transport Bhawan -1, Parliment Street, New Delhi 2. Regional Officer / Assistant Engineer, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway Regional Offce N.H. Campus -Pensionbada -Raipur, Distt -Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Engineer, Public Work Department National Highways Rang -Raipur Distt -Raipur (C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer, Public Work Department National Highways Division -Ambikapur Distt -Surguja (C.G.) 5. The Collector Balrampur Distt- Balrmpur -Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent - UOI : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, CGC For Respondent - State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.25 13:25:49 +0530 2 24.09.2026 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2020, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) sanctioned the construction of NH-343 from Ambikapur to Ramanujganj but failed to decide the objections raised by the localites. He further submits that Detailed Project Report (DPR) proposed construction of road in main town of Ramanunjganj without any proposal of ring road outside the city. He contends that subsequently, a new plan was proposed keeping in mind the objections raised by the citizens as well as the local MLA but the same is not being materialized. He further contends that respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to take appropriate steps on the proposal sent by respondent No. 4 dated 12.09.2025 and 10.02.2025. 2) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that petitioner has no right to seek a direction regarding change in the DPR and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3) Heard. 4) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of the petitioner to make a detailed representation along with relevant documents within period of 30 days before the respondent authorities, who in 3 turn are directed to decide such representation, if so preferred by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, preferably within further period of 90 days. 5) With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a