Disposed¶6

Ccm Metal Tech Pvt. Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2026WPC/1096/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur) | WPC No. 1096 of 2026 | decided 13.3.2026 | Single Bench, Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi | Article 226 writ | direction to State of Chhattisgarh (Commerce & Industries) to decide representation dated 27.11.2025 on industrial-policy (2014-19) subsidy claim for allotted land | prior rounds: WPC 1864/2019 dismissed 05.3.2024; WA 447/2024 dismissed 18.7.2024; SLP(C) Diary No(s). 60862/2024 withdrawn with liberty per Apex Court order 10.02.2025 | 45-day decision timeline | CSIDC / industrial premium | outcome: petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) expeditiously, preferably within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Ccm Metal Tech Pvt. Limited Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries) should be directed to decide the petitioner's representation dated 27/28.11.2025 (referred to elsewhere as 27.11.2025, Annexure-P/1) within a stipulated period.

¶1

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1).

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The representation is to be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPC No. 1096 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Single Bench (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi), decided 13.3.2026. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by CCM Metal Tech Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Suresh Ahuja against the State of Chhattisgarh (Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries) (Respondent No.1) and Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.2), seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) regarding the claimed subsidy under the Industrial Policy 2014-19 in respect of land allotted to the petitioner-company. Background: subsidy benefit not granted and a higher premium rate demanded; WPC No.1864/2019 dismissed by Single Bench on 05.3.2024; WA No.447/2024 dismissed on 18.7.2024; SLP (C) Diary No(s). 60862/2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court withdrawn with liberty to file representation, in compliance with the Apex Court order dated 10.02.2025. Disposed of: Respondent No.1 directed to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order; pending interlocutory applications, if any, disposed of.

2026:CGHC:12059

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1096 of 2026

¶6

1 - CCM Metal Tech Pvt. Limited A Company Duly Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of Law Having Its Registered Office At Plot No.1 Engineering Park, Heavy Industrial Area, Hathkhoj Bhilai District- Durg Through Its Vice Director Shri Suresh Ahuja Son Of Shri Kishan Lal Ahuja Aged About 45 Years Resident Of PSM2, Panchsheel Nagar Behind Jai Jawan Petrol Pump Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Suresh Ahuja S/o Shri Kishan Lal Ahuja Aged About 45 Years Director CCM Metal Tech Pvt Limited Plot No.1, Engineering Park Heavy Industrial Area Hathkhoj Bhilai District- Durg and Resident Of PSM 2, Panchsheel Nagar Behind Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director 1st Floor Udyog Bhawan Ring Road No.1, Telibandha Raipur Chhattisgarh District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioners	: Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State	: Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate

¶14

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

13.3.2026

¶17

Digitally
signed by
BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:
2026.03.16
14:09:52
+0530

¶18

¶19

1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated 27/28.11.2025 filed by the petitioner.

¶20

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner/Company, land was allotted to the petitioner, in respect of which the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of subsidy under the Industrial Policy of the year 2014-19. However, the said benefit was not granted to the petitioner; rather, higher premium rate was demanded from the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the same by filing WPC No.1864/2019. However, that petition was dismissed by learned Single Bench vide Order dated 05.3.2024. Against which, the petitioner preferred WA No.447/2024, which was also dismissed on 18.7.2024. Thereafter the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 60862/2024 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file representation before the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in compliance with the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10.02.2025, the petitioner filed representation dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1), but the same has not been decided yet. Hence, it is prayed that respondent No.1 may be directed to decide aforesaid representation of the petitioner within stipulated period.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1 submits that representation filed by the petitioner is under consideration and appropriate order shall be passed.

¶22

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

5. Having considered the limited prayer of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated

¶24

¶25

27.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

6. With aforesaid direction and observation, this petition stands disposed

¶27

¶28

7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶31

Judge

¶32