Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/4205/2026 of UDIT NARAYAN CHANDRA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 25 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4205 of 2026 Udit Narayan Chandra S/o Late P.D. Chandra Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Hardidih, Post Kachanda, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through
CGHC010313772026
2026:CGHC:41862
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4205 of 2026
Udit Narayan Chandra S/o Late P.D. Chandra Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Hardidih, Post Kachanda, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Co-Operative/co- Operation (Sahakarita) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chief Executive Officer/presiding Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Branch, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Chudamani Chandra S/o Late Kariya Ram Chandra Incharge Manager, Nandeli, Registration Number 1074, Prathamik Krishi Saakh Sahkari Samiti, Nandeli, Sakti District Sakti, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner
:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate
For State
:
Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Respective
Respondents
:
Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 26.09.2026
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. By filing the present petition, the Petitioner has called in question the legality of the recruitment and continuation of private respondent namely Chudamani Chandra as Retailer (Vendor)/In- charge Society Manager in Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti, Nandeli, Registration No. 1074, District Sakti, and has also sought appropriate action against him in view of the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar declaring the said recruitment void, as well as the subsequent show-cause notice and representations made by the Petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records with regards to service records of the private respondent, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to decide the representations of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to institute proper actions against the private respondent, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances, may also be provided to the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the recruitment of the private Respondent was made without following the prescribed procedure and, upon a complaint being made in this regard, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 24.11.2017, had declared the recruitment of the private Respondent as void and cancelled the post of Vendor. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid order, the private Respondent has continued to manage the Fair Price Shop and, although a show-cause notice was subsequently issued to him on 11.07.2023, no final action has been taken till date. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner has submitted several representations before the competent authorities seeking appropriate action against the private Respondent, but the same have not been considered and decided. He, therefore, confines his prayer to a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the Petitioner, in accordance with law, within a stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents submit that they would have no objection if the limited prayer made by the Petitioner is considered in accordance with law.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the limited prayer made by the Petitioner, the competent authorities are directed to consider and decide the representations submitted by the Petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Yogesh