Dismissed¶32

Rajendra Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Nov 2025WPC/1824/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPC No. 1824 of 2025, decided 12.11.2025 by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu: writ petition by six Raigarh apartment residents against State urban administration officials and private developer respondent no. 8 (Rajesh Jindal / M/s Bramha Builders And Developer Private Limited) dismissed as not maintainable because relief was sought against a private person; petitioners' earlier RERA claim had been rejected as the project fell outside RERA jurisdiction; liberty given to pursue other legal remedies. Keywords: maintainability, writ petition against private person, RERA, civil remedy, Raigarh, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner will be at liberty to avail other remedy available to him under law. ¶32

Rajendra Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:55033

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ALFIZA BAIG

¶6

Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.11.13 17:57:31 +0530

¶7

WPC No. 1824 of 2025

¶8

1 - Rajendra Rai S/o Shri Narmada Prasad Rai Aged About 41 Years R/o Ashwaryam Apartment, Goverdhanpur, Boirdadar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Ashish Banerjee S/o Late Shri N. K. Banerjee Aged About 51 Years R/o Flat No.-23, Block No.-1, Asharyam Apartment, Goverdhanpur, Boirdadar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Rekhlal Thakur S/o Late Shri M. L. Thakur Aged About 41 Years R/o Flat No.-01, Block- 2a, Asharyam Apartment, Goverdhanpur, Boirdadar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

4 - Chitta Ranjan Parida S/o Bhagwan Chandra Parida Aged About 45 Years R/o Flat No.-23, Block- 3, Asharyam Apartment, Goverdhanpur, Boirdadar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

5 - Premkumar Ojha S/o Ravindra Ojha Aged About 45 Years R/o Flat No. 27, Block- 2b, Asharyam Apartment, Goverdhanpur, Boirdadar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶13

6 - Jyotish Kumar Soni S/o Shri Dharam Lal Soni Aged About 37 Years R/o Aishwaryam Colony, Goverdhanpur, Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioners

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

2 - The Collector Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶19

3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶20

4 - The Sub Division Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶21

5 - The Deputy Director Office Of The Director, Town And Country Planning, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶22

6 - The Assistant Director Office Of The Director, Town And County Planning, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶23

7 - The Deputy Registrar Office Of Sub Registrar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶24

8 - Rajesh Jindal S/o Bajranglal Jindal R/o Dabhra Road, Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.), Through Its Proprietor M/s Bramha Builders And Developer Private Limited, Goverdhanpur

¶25

	... Respondents
For Petitioners	: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate
For State/Respondent	: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate
no. 1, 2, 4, 5,6 & 7
For Respondent no. 3	: Mrs. Priyanka Rai, Advocate
Hon'b	le Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
	Order On Board

¶26

12.11.2025

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent/State raises an objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the relief sought by

¶28

¶29

petitioner is against private person/respondent no. 8, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has already approached RERA, however his claim was rejected on the ground that project/colony developed by Respondent no. 8/private respondent, is not falling within the jurisdiction of RERA.

¶31

At this stage counsel for State submits that in view of the aforementioned facts of the case, petitioner could avail civil remedy available to him under law.

¶32

4.Considering facts of the case, relief sought is against respondent no. 8 (private person), in the opinion of this Court writ petition is not maintainable, accordingly, it is dismissed. However petitioner will be at liberty to avail other remedy available to him under law.

¶33

Certified copy as per rules.

¶34

sd/-

¶35

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

alfiza

Rajendra Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Singhania Vs Union of India

Ajay Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Das Mahant, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukti Dal Women Self Help Group Jhalariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vrishbhanu Kumar Tandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishankar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh