1 2026:CGHC:19845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2086 of 2026 1 - C. Venkat Ram Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy Cheruke, , Aged About 43 Years R/o 2-2 18/18/4/45g , D-D Colony Opposite Satya Sai Vidhya Vihar School Bagh, Amberpet, Hyaderabad, ( Telangana) Proprietor, M/s C.Venkatram Reddy Registered Office At J.B. Nagar, Mancherial District Adilabad, (Telangana) Pin No. 504208. 2 - Cheruku Bhanumathi W/o Cheruku Narayan Reddy, Aged About 65 Years R/o- D-D, Colony Opposite Satya Sai Vidhya Vihar School Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabadn ( Telangana) Proprietor , M/s Ch. Bhanumathi Cheruku Registered Office At J.B. Nagar Mancherial District Adilbad, ( Telangana ) Pin No. 504208. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Chief Conservator Of Forests And Ex-Officeir General Manager Chhattisgarh, State Minor Forest Produce ( Trading And Development ) Co- Operative Federation Ltd, Raipur C.G. 3 - Managing Director, C.G. State Minor Forest Produce ( Trading And Development) Co-Operative Federation Ltd, Raipur C.G. 4 - District Managing Director, District Minor Forest Produce Co- Operative Federation, Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.30 18:55:20 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondent authorities in demanding ₹5,30,000/- towards godown rent for storage of tendu leaves, despite the petitioner having utilized his private godown at his own cost due to the unsuitability of the allotted godown. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of an appropriate Writ commanding and directing the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature for quashing the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P/8) whereby the respondents have directed recovery of godown rent from the petitioner, being arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law; C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature directing the respondents not to recover or to wrongfully demand the amount of Rs.5,30,000/- as godown rent from the petitioner. D. Issue an appropriate writ/order directing the respondents to release/refund all Bank Guarantees furnished towards 15% Security Deposit and not to withhold the same on account of the disputed godown rent, as the 3 petitioner has duly complied with all contractual obligations; E. Issue an appropriate writ/order directing the respondents to grant compensation for the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents causing financial loss to the petitioner. F. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. G. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, at the outset, the grievance of the petitioners insofar as it relates to relief No. ‘B’, namely release of the Bank Guarantees furnished towards 15% Security Deposit, stands redressed during the pendency of the present proceedings and, therefore, no further adjudication is required on that aspect. However, it is emphatically contended that the core grievance of the petitioners, as articulated in relief No. ‘D’, remains unaddressed till date, inasmuch as the respondent authorities, despite being fully aware of and having themselves acknowledged through inspection reports and official communications that the allotted government godown was in a dilapidated and wholly unfit condition for storage of tendu leaves, and having accordingly permitted the petitioners to utilize a private godown in the larger interest of safeguarding the produce, have arbitrarily proceeded to raise and insist upon recovery of godown rent. It is submitted that such action is ex facie illegal, unjust, and contrary to the principles of fairness, equity and good conscience, as once the respondents themselves permitted deviation from the 4 contractual stipulation owing to impossibility of performance attributable to their own failure, they are estopped from enforcing the same condition to the detriment of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned demand is hit by the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, amounts to unjust enrichment, and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it seeks to impose financial liability upon the petitioners for a facility which was neither usable nor utilized. It is thus contended that the continued insistence on recovery of godown rent, despite repeated representations and overwhelming material on record, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5 submits that in the event the petitioners approach the concerned competent authority by way of a fresh representation, the same shall be duly considered and decided in accordance with law within a reasonable time. It is further submitted that the earlier order dated 08.12.2025, insofar as it relates to grant of concession/exemption in respect of godown rent along with interest, has already been withdrawn, and therefore, the petitioners’ grievance can now be independently examined by the competent authority on its own merits. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the submissions advanced, this Court deems it 5 appropriate to direct respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider and decide the petitioners’ grievance in accordance with law. It is observed that, in terms of communication dated 27.04.2026, the amount of rent to the tune of ₹5,71,158/- along with applicable interest has already been released in favour of the petitioners, which, prima facie, appears to be in consonance with the terms and conditions governing the parties, particularly Clause 10 of the agreement. 6. In view of the aforesaid development, the surviving grievance of the petitioners, if any, shall be examined independently by the competent authority, strictly in accordance with law and the governing contractual stipulations. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh