Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/2299/2022 of State Coordinator Gramin Saksharta Seva Sansthan, Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 21 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2299 of 2022 1 - State Coordinator Gramin Saksharta Seva Sansthan, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Through Its Director, T.R. Barik, S/o Rameshwar Barik, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Akashwani Chowk, Ambikapur, District
CGHC010161672022
2026:CGHC:41174
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2299 of 2022
1 - State Coordinator Gramin Saksharta Seva Sansthan, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Through Its Director, T.R. Barik, S/o Rameshwar Barik, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Akashwani Chowk, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.
3 - Collector Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.
4 - Project Officer Pahadi Korva Vikas Abhikaran, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Lundra, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. C. Jayankt K. Rao, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State :
Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026
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 way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P/1), order dated 07.02.2022 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 5 and the order/memo dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2022, order dated 07.02.2022 and order/memo dated 04.02.2022. He submits that, from a perusal of the aforesaid memo, it appears that a complaint has been made alleging that the petitioner-Society, which had provided training, failed to pay remuneration to the trainers. On the basis of the said complaint, the impugned memo was issued to the petitioner-Society. He further submits that the said complaint is false and fabricated.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not impleaded the necessary and proper party in the present petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon perusal of the impugned memo, it appears that there is presently nothing required adjudication by this Court. The State authorities have also not placed on record any document to show that any enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner, or any proceedings are pending for consideration, or that any adverse order has been passed against the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is dismissed. However, if any adverse order is subsequently passed against the petitioner, particularly in respect of any recovery, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat