1 2026:CGHC:16793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1684 of 2021 1 - Ms. Lovely Traders Through Its Proprietor, Tanveer Singh Chhabra, S/o Shri Dharam Veer Singh Chhabra, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Maharana Pratap Chowk, Old Raipur Naka, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of C.G. Through The Principal Secretary, Forest Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Divisional Forest Officer Bilaspur Forest Officer, Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Forest Range Officer Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For State :- Mrs. Akansha Verma Dhabedkar, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 13.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 03.03.2021 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- within a period of three days, failing which it has been stated that legal action including registration of FIR would be initiated against him. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said order. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is engaged in the business of supply of cement and steel and has been supplying such materials to various Government departments including the Forest Department. It is contended that during the period from 2018 to 2020, the petitioner supplied building materials to the Forest Range, Ratanpur, on the instructions of respondent No. 3, who was then posted as Forest Range Officer. It is further contended that against the said supply, three cheques amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- were issued by the respondent authorities, which were duly encashed by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that the said amount was towards lawful discharge of liability for the materials supplied and that certain amounts still remain outstanding. According to the petitioner, upon making a request 3 for payment of the balance dues, the impugned order dated 03.03.2021 was issued alleging that the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- had been withdrawn fraudulently and directing the petitioner to deposit the same, failing which criminal proceedings would be initiated. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2 whereby the petitioner has been deposit Rs. 25 lakhs, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. It is contended that the petitioner has supplied materials in good faith and the payment was made through duly issued cheques by a competent authority. It is further submitted that there is a presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques were issued for valid consideration, and in absence of any proof of fraud, the petitioner cannot be directed to refund the amount. It is also submitted that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature arising out of contractual transactions, and the respondent authorities cannot resort to coercive measures such 4 as directing deposit of money and threatening criminal action. It is contended that the impugned order has been issued with mala fide intent to avoid payment of legitimate dues of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order has been issued in view of serious irregularities noticed in the transactions carried out by the then Forest Range Officer. It is submitted that the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was withdrawn without proper authorization and without execution of corresponding work, and therefore the authorities are justified in seeking recovery of the same. It is further submitted that the matter involves disputed questions of fact relating to supply of materials, execution of work, and validity of transactions, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It is also contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under civil law and therefore the present petition is not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that only a notice has been issued to the petitioner and the matter requires proper consideration by the competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach respondent No. 2 by filing a detailed reply along with all relevant documents. Upon such submission, respondent No. 2 shall consider the same, 5 afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter pass a reasoned and appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. It is further observed that this Court, vide interim order dated 22.03.2021, has already stayed the recovery proceedings. Accordingly, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner by the respondent authorities till final decision is taken by the competent authority. 9. The petitioner is also granted liberty to avail the remedy of appeal, if available under law. The petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 15 days from today along with a copy of this order and his reply. The authority shall thereafter consider and decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days, after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha