1 2026:CGHC:15346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 506 of 2021 1 - Rupan Dhirhe S/o Fagulal Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Jherabhata Tundri, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Block- Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - D.B. Power Limited Through- Its Managing Director, Business Office, Village- Badadarha, Post- Kanwali, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Its Member Secretary, Paryawas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Caust-title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, Advocate appearing on behalf of Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For State : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 7 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Resp. No. 8 : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue Bilaspur. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the entire records which relates to passing of the impugned order for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 10.3 That this Honble court may kindly be please to direct the respondent No. 3 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of Pretivedan of revenue officers as well as statement. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted” 2. Learned counsel for the respective respondents raises preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and would submit that, from a bare perusal of the reliefs sought in the writ petition, it is evident that the nature of the grievance raised 3 transcends an individual cause and partakes the character of a public interest issue. However, the petitioner has instituted the present petition in his individual capacity, without adhering to the settled principles governing public interest litigation. Learned counsel submit that the petitioner has attempted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court without satisfying the necessary requirements of locus standi. In view of the aforesaid, it is argued that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the respective respondents on the question of maintainability of the present writ petition and have perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking, inter alia, quashment of the impugned order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue and a direction to the concerned authority to reconsider his case in light of the reports of the revenue officers. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been contended that, from a bare perusal of the reliefs sought, the nature of the grievance raised by the petitioner does not reflect enforcement of a purely individual or personal right, but rather partakes the character of a matter akin to public interest. However, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in 4 his individual capacity without complying with the settled parameters governing public interest litigation. 6. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and the reliefs claimed in the petition, this Court finds substance in the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without clearly establishing his locus standi for seeking the reliefs as claimed. 7. It is well settled that a writ petition must be founded upon an enforceable legal right of the petitioner. In the present case, the nature of reliefs sought does not unequivocally demonstrate infringement of any specific legal or fundamental right of the petitioner in his individual capacity so as to warrant interference by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable in its current form. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent forum, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE