Dismissed¶30

Vishwa Ratan Sinha v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Aug 2025WPC/4435/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPC No. 4435 of 2025, decided 20/08/2025 by Arvind Kumar Verma, J. Petition by Vishwa Ratan Sinha challenging renewal of lease of M/s Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited (Bhilai) for alleged unauthorised construction, breach of FAR and excess land possession; dismissed solely on the ground of lack of locus standi of the petitioner. Keywords: lease renewal, locus standi, writ dismissed, municipal corporation Bhilai, unauthorised construction.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. ¶27

Vishwa Ratan Sinha Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:41974

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4435 of 2025

¶6

1 - Vishwa Ratan Sinha S/o Late N.N. Sinha Aged About 53 Years R/o Sector 6, E-Market, Bhilai District Durg 490006, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur 492002, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan Block-D, Fourt Floor, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Collector District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bhilai, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - The Joint Director Town And Country Planning, Durg, Behind Collectorate, Mahaveer Nagar, Balak Bhavan Path, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6 - M/s Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited Having Its Registered Office At Block No. 10, First Floor, Himalaya Complex, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 490023

¶14

		.	.. Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Ashwin Panickar, Advocate
For State	: Ms.	Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents	: Mr.	Venktesh Pandey on behalf of Mr.	R.S. Marhas,
	Adv	ocate

¶15

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

20/08/2025

¶19

By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:

¶20

“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the renewal of lease in favour of Respondent no. 6 as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the applicable building regulations, lease conditions and public policy. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent no. 4 to take appropriate action in accordance with law against respondent no. 6 for unauthorised constructions, breach of floor area ration, encroachment or possession of excess land of approximate 2,112.8 sq. ft. and sale of units in violation of lease conditions.

¶21

10.4 The Hon’ble Court may grant any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may

¶22

¶23

deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking enquiry into the conduct of municipal authorities for entering into renewal of lease with M/s Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited despite violations of the conditions of the grant of lease and cancellation of renewed lease of M/s Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited. On 20.11.1991 M/s Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited was granted 1698 sq. meter plot by the then Special Area Development Authority for a thirty year lease and during the pendency of the lease M/s Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited made extra construction beyond the allotted land and also built multiple stories beyond the permitted limit as per the plot size. But despite such blatant violations the Municipal Authorities renewed the lease for another thirty years.

¶25

Learned State counsel opposed the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and stated that there is no locus standi of the petitioner.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, this Court finds that there is no locus standi of the petitioner. Hence, there is no good ground to

¶28

¶29

entertain this petition.

¶30