Quashed

Pirthiviraj Tatia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2025WPC/339/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of her shop allotment by the cooperative society without notice or hearing. The High Court quashed the cancellation order for violating natural justice, permitting respondents to initiate fresh proceedings with due opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08/01/2021 cancelling shop allotment quashed; liberty to respondents No. 2 and 3 to initiate fresh proceedings after hearing.

Pirthiviraj Tatia Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cooperative Societies | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 339 of 2021

¶5

REKHA SINGH

¶6

1 - Pirthiviraj Tatia S/o Champalal Tatia Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 29, Gurudwara Road, Subhash Ward Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribal Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta And Vikas Nigam Maryadit (A Undertaking Of Gevernment Of Chhattisgarh), Thdrough Managing Director, Sector-27, Nawagaon Parsatti, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 492101

¶11

3 - Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Collector Bastar President, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.PrateekSingh Thakur,Advocate
For State	: Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer
For respondent No.2 & 3	: Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

08.08.2025

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 That, the records pertaining to the allotment and cancellation of Shop with respect to the petitioner may kindly be called for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶20

10.2 That, the impugned notice dated 08/01/2021 may kindly be set aside/quashed and the petitioner be allowed to continue with the peaceful possession of the shop in question.

¶21

-2-

¶22

10.3 That, any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a shop was allotted to the petitioner by respondents No. 2 & 3 on 06.09.1999. Не would contend that without affording any opportunity of hearing, order (Annexure-P/1) dated 08/01/2021 was issued by respondent No. 3. whereby the order of allotment was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to vacate the shop premises. He would further submit that the petitioner has already deposited the rent amount and argues that the order violates the principles of natural justice. may be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing. She would submit that the petitioner failed to deposit the rent amount, therefore, the impugned order was passed.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that the answering respondents may be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing. She would submit that the petitioner failed to deposit the rent amount, therefore, the impugned order was passed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶26

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

¶27

Taking into consideration the fact that the order (Annexure-P/1) was issued by respondent No. 3 without issuance of notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, therefore, it is not sustainable in the

¶28

¶29

eyes of law and is hereby quashed. Respondents No. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so advised.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶32

Rekha

Pirthiviraj Tatia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pirthiviraj Tatia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Loknath Nahak Vs Commissioner Coalmines Provident Fund Organisation

Basant Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nisha Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Setram Yadav Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Govind Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandhya Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh