Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/5265/2026 of RAVICHAND GUPTA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 13 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5265 of 2026 1 - Ravichand Gupta S/o Shri. Rajendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 26 Years R/o Aasma Residency Enclave Phase-3 House No. A.D. 148, Mungeli Road Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Neeraj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri
CGHC010397272026
2026:CGHC:44367
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5265 of 2026
1 - Ravichand Gupta S/o Shri. Rajendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 26
Years R/o Aasma Residency Enclave Phase-3 House No. A.D. 148, Mungeli Road Sakri, District Bilaspur
(C.G.)
2 - Neeraj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 31
Years R/o Aasma Residency Enclave Phase-3 House No. A.D. 148, Mungeli Road Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Under Secretary Housing And Environment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Joint Director Town And Country Planning Regional Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
:
Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent(s) :
Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for the following reliefs: 10.1 Issue notices to the respondents, returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 Direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the revision within stipulated period in accordance with law. 10.3
Issue
any
other relief/order/direction in favour of petitioners, which deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of land bearing Khasra No. 130/4, admeasuring 40 decimals, situated at Village Parsada, P.H. No. 19, R.I.C. Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur. The petitioners applied for installation of a petrol pump over the said land pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation. After verification of the relevant documents, the Indian Oil Corporation issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) in favour of petitioner No. 1 vide letter dated 12.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners obtained No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the concerned Gram Panchayat, the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company
Limited (CSEB) and the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department. Learned counsel further submits that, on 21.08.2024, the petitioners submitted an application before respondent No. 3 seeking a utility certificate. In response, respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 28.08.2024, informed the petitioners that Village Parsada does not fall within the notified Town and Country Planning (T&CP) area and, therefore, a utility certificate could not be issued. Thereafter, the petitioners applied to respondent No. 3 for permission to install the petrol pump. However, their application was rejected vide order dated 21.04.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 31 of the Act before respondent No. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2025. Subsequently, the petitioners preferred a revision petition under Section 32 of the Act before respondent No. 1, which is still pending consideration. Learned counsel submits that, despite the matter being listed on 08.06.2026, no further date of hearing has been fixed till date. Accordingly, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the pending revision petition within a stipulated period.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the revision petition preferred by the petitioners is pending consideration before respondent No. 1 and that the same may be directed to be decided in accordance with law within a reasonable period.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the limited relief sought by the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the revision petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 32 of the Act, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and respondent No. 1 shall decide the revision petition independently, in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. SD/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
JUDGE Madhurima