1 / 2 2026:CGHC:16198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 126 of 2026 • Lokesh Sahu S/o Shri Kumar Sahu Aged About 34 Years Presently Posted As Investigator (Anveshak) In The Office Of Assistant Director, Town And Country Planning, Regional Office, Ambikapur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Shri Ankit Anand Secretary, The Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shri Avnish Kumar Sharan Commissioner Cum Directorate Of Town And Country Planning, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhavan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Shri Alok Chandra Baiswade Assistant Director Town And Country Planning, Ambikapur (C.G.), Regional Office Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.Gopa Kumar, Advocate (through VC mode) Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 08/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the order, subject matter of the contempt, has been complied with as the representation submitted by petitioner was considered and the same is rejected vide order dated 24.02.2026. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that representation submitted by petitioner was not consider in appropriate manner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 4. Operative portion of the order under contempt passed in WPS No. 9374/2025 dated 08.09.2025 is extracted below for ready reference. “4. Considering the limited submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No. 4 to take a decision on the pending representations of the petitioner dated 20.03.2025 and 28.05.2025, in accordance with law, keeping in view the circular dated 30.08.2010 as well as judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Net Ram Yadav’s case (supra) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. Perusal of the aforesaid order would show that there was direction issued to Respondent No. 4 to take decision on the representation of petitioner. Undisputedly, concerned respondent-authority has taken decision on the representation and rejected the same vide order Annexure R-1 dated 24.02.2026. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Respondent No. 1 has passed order and therefore contempt proceeding initiated against respondents is dropped, notice issued to respondents stands discharged and the contempt petition accordingly stands closed. 7. Petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse of the law against the decision taken by respondent-authority on his representation, if he so desires. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE