Dismissed¶27

Santosh Namdev v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2024WPC/1994/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

locus standi; maintainability of writ petition; Article 226 Constitution of India; Municipal Council Kawardha; shop allotment reserved for woman; Shop No. 32 Naveen Bazar; allotment to male respondent; complaint by councillor; no prejudice to complainant; Collector Kabirdham appeal order 13/06/2016; disturbance of eight-year-old allotment; writ petition dismissed; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Bibhu Datta Guru

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not a participant in the allotment proceeding and no prejudice has been caused to him, as he is not a woman who could claim allotment of Shop No. 32; accordingly he lacks the standing imputed by his complaint alone. ¶26

Santosh Namdev Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:43447

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1994 of 2016

¶6

1 - Santosh Namdev S/o Shri Khorbahra @ Ramsharan Namdev, Aged About 51 Years Councilor Ward No 19, Municipal Council Kawardha, R/o Maa Shitla Ward No 19, Kabir Marg Kawardha, District Kawardha Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶10

2 - Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶11

Digitally NARESH signed by KUMAR NARESH KAMDE KUMAR KAMDE

¶12

3 - Municipal Council Kawardha, Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Santosh Gupta, S/o Shri Siyaram Gupta, Aged About 39 Years R/o Hardevlal Mandir, Thakurmpara, Ward No 22, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner	: Shri Jitendra Pali along with Shri Pranjal Shukla, Advocates.
For the State/Resp.	: Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
No. 1 & 2
For the Resp. No. 3	: Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate appearing on
	behalf of Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate.
FortheResp. No. 4	: Ms. Pratibha Sahu,Advocate (appearing through

¶16

¶17

Video Conferencing) on behalf of Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

07/11/2024

¶21

By the present writ petition the petitioner, who was the then Councilor of Municipal Council, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) challenging the allotment of Shop No. 32, Naveen Bazar, Municipal Council, Kawardha to the respondent No. 4, alleging that the allotment was done in an illegal and arbitrary manner which causes loss of Rs.36.12 Lacs to the Municipal Council. The petitioner/complainant also challenging the order dated 13/06/2016 passed by the Collector, Kabirdham in the appeal filed by him.

¶22

The main contention of the petitioner is that the Shop No. 32 which has been allotted to the respondent No. 4 was reserved for woman, but the said shop has been allotted to respondent No. 4, who is not woman. As the shop reserved for woman has been allotted to a male member, the allotment is bad in law.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was the then Councilor of Municipal Council, who has lodged the complaint before the Municipal Council as well as the Collector has no locus to challenge the present allotment of Shop No. 32 to the respondent No. 4 as no prejudice has been caused to him and he has no right to challenge the same by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

¶26

It appears that the petitioner who was a Councilor of the Municipal Council, Kawardha lodged the complaint questioning the allotment of shop to the respondent No. 4 stating that the questioned shop has been allotted a male member though it was reserved for woman. The petitioner is challenging the allotment of shop to respondent No. 4 though the petitioner was not a participant to the said allotment proceeding and even no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the petitioner is not a woman, who can claim the allotment of the said Shop No. 32. The allotment of shop has been made in the year 2016 to the respondent No. 4 and hence at this stage it will not be proper to disturb the allotment after eight years.

¶27

Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner only on the basis of complaint lodged by him is not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Kamde

Santosh Namdev v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Namdev v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheshyam Banjare @ Radhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Devi Mehar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Firoz Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Golsai Gond Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Naresh Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. Vs Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary