Krishna Bharti v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (PIL) No. 121 of 2020

1. Krishna Bharti S/o Mangkandan Bharti Aged About 30 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Litiya, R/o Village Litiya, Disrict Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

2. Taneshwar Kumar S/o Kanwal Singh Shrivas Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Rewadih, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3. Gamendra Netam S/o Ramgopal Netam Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Rewadih, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Forest, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Conservator of Forest Durg Circle, Durg.

4. Divisional Forest Officer Rajnandgaon Division, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 04.12.2020 1.

The Petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers : "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside Annexure P/01, to the extent of Rewadih Checkpost and direct the respondent authorities to take immediately restart the Revadih Forest Produce Checkpost.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any further orders, as it may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2.

Shri Prasoon Agrawal, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the grievance is mainly with regard to the arbitrary closure of forest produce checkpoint in Rewadih, Rajnandgaon, which has made serious consequence. The move has been made by the Respondent-State with some dubious intent and the said circumstance, the Petitioners have projected the grievance by way of Annexure P/6 before the 4th Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioners that the matter has been pending in cold storage before the Authorities, hence, he approached this Court by filing writ petition styled as 'Public Interest Litigation'. 3.

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, the learned counsel representing the Respondent-State submits that the closure of the checkpoint is for specific reasons and seeks for time to file a statement in this regard. However, in view of the fact that the Petitioners have already moved the Authorities by submitting Annexure P/6 representation, the learned counsel further submits that the same will be looked into and appropriate order will be passed within a time frame.

4.

In the said circumstance, we do not find it necessary to go into the merit of the case. The writ petition stands disposed off directing the 4th Respondent to look into Annexure P/6 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Petitioners shall produce a copy of the order along with copy of the writ petition before the 4th Respondent for further steps.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Anu