1 2026:CGHC:16561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1651 of 2026 1 - Samyak Kranti Through Proprietor/editor/owner Dushyant Kumar, S/o Late Rudra Prashad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Behind District And Sessions Court, Ward No. 11, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director (Advertisement), Directorate Of Public Relations, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Director (Advertisement) Directorate Of Public Relations, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Directorate Of Public Relations, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Collector Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 6 - Assistant Director District Public Relations Office, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 7 - Assistant Director District Public Relations Office, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 8 - Assistant Public Relations Officer District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For State :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 10.04.2026 1. The present petition is directed against the arbitrary and illegal inaction of the respondent authorities in not taking any decision on the Advertisement Questionnaire submitted by the petitioner on 30.09.2023 for approval of the Surajpur edition of the newspaper Samyak Kranti. Despite submission of all requisite documents, repeated representations, and clear directions issued by the Directorate of Public Relations, Raipur, the application has been kept pending for more than two years. The same was even returned without any valid justification. This has given rise to a continuous cause of action. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the said Advertisement Questionnaire in a time-bound manner and to grant all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to complete the procedure of application dated 30.09.2023 for Advertisement Questionnaire in relation το Surajpur edition of the newspaper 3 Samyak Kranti owned/published/circulated by the petitioner. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondents to obtain necessary opinion of the Collector, Surajpur and forward the questionnaire to the Directorate of Public Relations, Raipur as per the clear instructions vide letter dated 06.11.2024 and 22.12.2025 in stipulated time as early as possible; (iii) That any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Editor/Publisher/Owner of the daily newspaper Samyak Kranti and has been regularly publishing its Baikunthpur (Koriya) edition since 2011, Surajpur edition since 2021, and GPM edition since 2022. The petitioner submitted an Advertisement Questionnaire Form along with all requisite documents before the District Public Relations Office, Surajpur on 30.09.2023 for approval and onward transmission to the Directorate of Public Relations, Raipur. Despite submission of complete documents, the authorities have failed to take any decision and have kept the matter pending for more than two years without justification. The Assistant Director, District Public Relations Office, Surajpur sought guidance from the 4 Directorate, which, vide letters dated 06.11.2024 and 22.12.2025, issued clear directions to follow due procedure, confirm circulation, and forward the application after obtaining the Collector’s opinion. Despite these directions and clarification that the inspection report from Koriya district is valid, the district authorities have neither complied nor taken action and have even returned the application without lawful reason. The petitioner was constrained to submit complaints to higher authorities, yet no relief has been granted. Instead, further delay has been caused by issuance of a misconceived letter dated 29.01.2026 by the Assistant Director, Surajpur. The continuous inaction and arbitrary conduct of the respondents are illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and have caused financial loss to the petitioner due to denial of government advertisements, despite repeated representations remaining unaddressed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and illegally in keeping the petitioner’s application pending since 30.09.2023 without any justifiable reason, resulting in serious financial loss as the petitioner’s newspaper has been deprived of government advertisements. It is further submitted that the petitioner is running a newspaper in the name and style of Samyak Kranti in the districts of Surajpur, Manendragarh and Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi, and under the relevant rules, is required to submit an advertisement 5 questionnaire for empanelment and allocation of government advertisements. However, due to the pendency of the application and non-finalization of requisite formalities, the process has not been completed, thereby causing prejudice and hindering smooth functioning of the newspaper. Learned counsel further submits that despite directions issued by the Directorate of Public Relations, Raipur vide letters dated 06.11.2024 and 22.12.2025, the Assistant Director, District Public Relations Office, Surajpur has failed to follow the prescribed procedure and has delayed the matter on one pretext or another. The communication dated 29.01.2026 is stated to be misconceived, contrary to the said directions, and intended to delay the petitioner’s case and extend undue advantage to others. Accordingly, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s application expeditiously in accordance with law. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner’s application is under consideration in accordance with the prescribed procedure and has not been kept pending arbitrarily. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not fulfilled all requisite formalities, and therefore no right accrues for empanelment or allocation of advertisements. It is thus submitted that no case for interference is made out and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the respondent authorities having already sought and received instructions from the Directorate on two occasions, no final decision has been taken on the petitioner’s application. Once the requisite clarifications have been obtained, it is incumbent upon the competent authority to take a final decision in accordance with law. The authorities cannot keep the application pending indefinitely in a state of inaction. The grievance raised by the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be redressed. 8. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. 10. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha