← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2766/2017disposed off

Onkar Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-10-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2766 of 2017 Onkar Singh S/o Malik Ram Aged about 57 years, R/o Jute Mill Road Raigarh, Thana Jute Mill Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Department of Commerce and Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector, Raigarh, Collectorate Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Registrar Gharghoda, Office of Sub- Registrar, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

4. M/s T. R. N. Energy Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having its Office at 4732/22 Ground Floor, Prakashdeep Building Ansari Road Dariyaganj, New Delhi, 110002, Through Its Directors.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Mr. Gary Mukhopadhayay, Dy. G.A. for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 11/10/17 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 passed by the Collector, Raigarh is unsustainable and bad in law.

2.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the writ petition suffers from delay and latches as the impugned order was passed by the Collector, Raigarh way back on 03.11.2014 and the writ petition has been filed on 03.10.2017.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.

The impugned order of the Collector, Raigarh was passed on 03.11.2014 and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner with delay of about three years and it has not been satisfactorily explained as to why there is delay of three years in filing the writ petition. Apart from this, there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 04, a Private Company which is purely a civil dispute between the parties and the writ petition cannot entertain to resolve the civil dispute. 5.

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, this will not bar the petitioner to avail the remedy available to him under the law. No order as to cost(s).

SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka