Mohammad Shoaib v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1876 of 2021 • Mohammad Shoaib S/o Rafique Mohammad, Aged About 32 Years Occupation Contractor (Parking Contractor) R/o Bristol Chowk House No.- 8/8, Chhotapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

2. Additional Collector, Najrat Branch, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

3. Joint Collector, Through Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State :

Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 09.04.2021

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted a contract to run cycle-stand in front of Prosecution Office, Town Hall and in front of Collectorate. The period of the contract to run cycle-stand was from March 2020 to February 2021, however the because of the fact that certain construction was carried out in front of Registry Office and S.P. Office, the parking could not be made, consequently the cycle-stand could not be operated on those places. Furthermore, it is submitted that because of the lock-down for the reason of COVID for a considerable period the petitioner could not operate his cycle-stand. He submits that under these circumstances the petitioner had filed an application before the Collector on 11.01.2021 and

another letter dated 01.02.2021 vide Annexures P/3 & P/4 raising his grievance. Therefore, the limited prayer is made that the same may be decided accordingly. He further submits that instead the petitioner has been served with a letter dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P/5) to pay an amount of Rs. 1,84,266/- to grant a month's extension. It is submitted that since nucleus of the issue is one and same, as such if the application of the petitioner is directed to be decided, then the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed.

3. Learned State counsel do opposes the submission.

4. Considering the limited prayer that the petitioner has only claimed that his representations dated 11.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 vide Annexures P/3 & P/4 may be decided, therefore the Collector is directed to decide the said prayer of the petitioner within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the right of the parties and the order has been passed simply on the ground that the representation has been sought to be decided.

5. With the above direction/observation, this writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- SD/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Vishakha