Yogesh Kumar Pathak S/o Shri Laxmi Sewak Pathak Aged About 40 Years R/o Purana v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Mungeli, District - Mungeli
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.05.01 10:13:43 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:19548-DB NAFR WA No. 285 of 2025 Yogesh Kumar Pathak S/o Shri Laxmi Sewak Pathak Aged About 40 Years R/o Purana Bus Stand, Lormi, Tehsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Nilima Jyotishi D/o Ramashankar Jyotishi R/o Brahmanpara, Lormi, Tehsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Vedram Chaturvedi S/o Parsuram Chaturvedi Ra. Ni. Ma. Lormi, At Present R/o Lormi, Tehsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr.Vikhyat Arora, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent : : No.2 Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate Ms.Diksha Gouraha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.04.2025 2 1. Heard Mr.Vikhyat Arora, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 497 of 2019 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that on 19.10.2009, an advertisement was issued for grant of licence under the Chhattisgarh Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Scheme for Lormi. The applications were invited from the actual residents of Lormi. Respondent No. 2 applied for the domicile certificate before the Tehsildar, Lormi and vide order dated 16.11.2009, the Tehsildar issued a domicile certificate of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as a residence certificate of Lormi. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Tehsildar under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code which was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2011. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lormi and the certificate issued by the Tehsildar Lormi was cancelled vide order dated 27.07.2011. Against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur which was allowed vide order dated 03.07.2012. 3 Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, the appellant filed a revision petition which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2018. Against which, the appellant has filed writ petition being WPC No.497/2019, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the advertisement dated 19.10.2009 published for grant of licence under the CG Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Scheme for a particular place Lormi and the applications were invited from the actual resident of that place i.e. Lormi. The respondent no. 2 claiming herself to be a actual resident of Lormi is highly objectionable and the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Lormi is illegal & untenable. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the SDO, Lormi has minutely and categorically vigiled the guidelines prevailing for issuance of domicile certificate and actual resident certificate and on the basis of those guidelines he has arrived to a conclusion that tha Tahsildar has committed a stern error by issuing a resident certificate to the respondent No. 2. Had it being a case when the Tahsildar, Lormi would have not issued the illegal resident certificate in favour of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 would have not applied for grant of licence of LPG. He further submits that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 is not a resident of Lormi. According to clause 3 4 of the advertisement for LPG Distribution Dealership, the candidate must be a resident of a particular village or city. Learned Single Judge has erred in para 7 by stating that "It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Lormi.". He also submits that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 has passed the High School Certificate Exam from MP Education Board, Bhopal by studying in Rani Awanti Bai Girls HS School, Mandla in the year 1991. Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that from the documents available on record it is clear that the respondent No.2 in a resident of Mandla, MP and also the affidavits was sorn by the parents of the respondent No.2, in which the address mentioned is that of Mandla City. He contended that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the Revenue Inspector, Lormi has stated in his evidence that without verifying the fact from the register or document, such a certificate was issued. Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue are without verifying the documents available on record and the same ought to have inspected by the authorities before passing order in favour of the respondent No.2. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the 5 appellant and submits that learned Single Judge considering all
Decision
the aspects of the matter has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, which warrants no interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge observed that admittedly, the LPG Distribution Dealership was granted to respondent No.2 in the year 2009 on the basis of a domicile certificate submitted by her. The residence certificate was also issued by the competent authority. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Lormi. Learned Single Judge also observed that the LPG Distribution dealership was granted to respondent No. 2 in the year 2009 and earlier, the petitions were filed by the petitioner and those petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, after 16 years, it would not be appropriate to interfere with such allotment of the dealership. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents annexed with writ petition, as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity 6 or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu