Raju Ram Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

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

¶11

3 - Zila Antyavasi 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

WPC No. 2072 of 2021

¶15

Raju Ram Baghel S/o Dharam Ram Baghel Aged About 44 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶16

Digitally signed by SHYNA SHYNA AJAY AJAY Date: 2026.04.21 11:43:40 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

--- Petitioner(s)

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶21

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

¶22

3 - Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur, The Chief Executive Officer, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶23

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

¶24

--- Respondent(s)

¶25

WPC No. 715 of 2021

¶26

Rupesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Dhirju Ram, Aged About 46 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Ward, Tehsil Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶27

--- Petitioner(s)

¶28

Versus

¶29

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶30

2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai SahakariVitta And Vikas Nigam Maryadit (A Undertaking Of Government Of Chhattisgarh), Through Managing Director, Sector 27, Nawagaon Parsatti, Naya Raipur , Chhattisgarh.

¶31

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

¶32

3

¶33

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

¶34

--- Respondent(s)

¶35

WPC No. 616 of 2021

¶36

Dharam Das S/o Set Lal Das, Aged 51 Years R/o- Danteshwari Ward, TehsilJagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶37

--- Petitioner(s)

¶38

Versus

¶39

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

--- Respondent(s)

¶44

WPC No. 607 of 2021

¶45

Pramod Kumar Pal S/o Durga Prasad, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village- Aadawal, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶46

--- Petitioner(s)

¶47

Versus

¶48

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶49

4

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

--- Respondent(s)

¶54

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶55

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondents 2 & : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advcate 3

¶56

S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶57

Order on Board

¶58

10/04/2026

¶59

The factual matrix as well as the core issue involved in all these writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶60

For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No445/2021 is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the present batch of matters. The decision rendered herein shall, however, govern the connected writ petitions as well, as the issues raised therein are identical in nature. In W.P.(C) No445/2021, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

¶61

5

¶62

“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.

¶63

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.

¶64

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.

¶65

The facts of the present case, as borne out from the pleadings, are that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, has approached this Court. It is stated that after the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, respondent No. 2 Corporation was constituted as a Registered Co-operative Society on 30.10.2000 with the object of providing financial assistance, vocational training, and employment opportunities to members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, sanitary workers, backward classes, and minorities. The said society functions under the control of respondent No. 1 Department. For effective implementation of its schemes at the district level, District Level Co-operative Development Societies were established to impart training and skill development to unemployed youth. Respondent No. 3 is one such society constituted for District Bastar at Jagdalpur, wherein the Collector

¶66

6

¶67

acts as the President and a full-time Chief Executive Officer administers its affairs. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No. 3 is an instrumentality of the State and its actions are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further averred that in the year 1993, respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of shops in Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur, under a Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme aimed at providing livelihood opportunities to unemployed youth belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other categories. As per the advertisement, a total of 28 shops were proposed to be allotted at a total consideration of Rs. 44,500/-, payable in monthly installments under mutually agreed conditions. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for allotment of a shop and was found eligible. Accordingly, an allotment letter dated 21.11.1997 was issued by respondent No. 3, whereby Shop No. 36 was allotted to the petitioner and possession thereof was handed over to her. The allotment was on a rent-cum-sale basis, and the petitioner duly deposited the entire consideration amount of Rs. 44,500/- in accordance with the terms of allotment. The receipts evidencing such payments have been brought on record. It is the case of the petitioner that since the date of allotment, she has been in continuous possession of the shop and has been running her business peacefully for nearly two decades without any interruption or dispute from the respondents. However, it is alleged that in the

¶68

7

¶69

month of December, 2020, certain persons visited the shop premises in the absence of the petitioner, and thereafter, an eviction notice dated 08.01.2021 came to be issued alleging nonpayment of outstanding rent amounting to Rs. 71,380/-. The petitioner contends that no prior notice, inquiry, or opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to her before issuance of the said eviction notice. She further submits that she is unaware of the basis of the allegations made against her. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner submitted representation before respondents No. 3 and 4 requesting them not to disturb her possession over the shop. However, according to the petitioner, the authorities are intent upon evicting her from the said premises, which has constrained her to file the present writ petition before this Court.

¶70

Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned eviction notice dated 08.01.2021 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the said notice is without any basis and in violation of the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement and the allotment letter dated 21/11/1997, the petitioner had been validly allotted Shop No. 36 in Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur, under the Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme. The petitioner has duly paid the entire consideration amount as well as the rent as required under the terms of allotment. Learned

¶71

8

¶72

counsel emphasizes that there is no documentary evidence on record to establish that any rent remains outstanding against the petitioner. Despite this, the respondent authorities have, in a wholly arbitrary and fanciful manner, issued the impugned eviction notice alleging non-payment of rent. Learned counsel further contends that before issuing such a drastic order of eviction, the respondents were under a legal obligation to issue a notice to the petitioner, call upon her to explain or substantiate the allegations, and conduct a proper inquiry into the matter. However, no such opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. The impugned notice neither discloses the period for which the alleged rent is due nor provides any supporting documents, thereby rendering the action violative of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the lease period has not expired and the petitioner, having fulfilled all conditions of allotment, cannot be evicted in such an arbitrary manner. It is also argued that the impugned notice has been issued without proper authority and sanction. As per the governing framework, the Collector, being the competent authority and the one who originally sanctioned the allotment, is required to approve such action. Furthermore, no committee has been constituted or approval obtained for initiating proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, the impugned action, taken by an authority subordinate to the competent authority, is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notice

¶73

9

¶74

is vague and ambiguous, as it fails to specify the duration of the alleged outstanding rent or the specific clauses of the allotment terms that have been violated. No prior notice, warning, or communication was ever issued to the petitioner alleging breach of any condition. It is contended that since the allotment was made under a State instrumentality, the respondents are expected to act in a fair, transparent, and reasonable manner, which has clearly not been adhered to in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned eviction notice infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it unjustly restricts her right to carry on her lawful business.

¶75

Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, submits that respondent No. 2, namely the C.G. Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Maryadit, was constituted as a co-operative society on 30.10.2000 with the objective of providing financial assistance and promoting economic development among members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Sanitary Workers, Backward Classes and minorities. It is submitted that the said society functions under the control of the State Government and, for effective implementation of its schemes at the district level, co-operative development societies have been established, of which respondent No. 3 is one such entity. Learned counsel further submits that in the year 1993, respondent No. 3 had issued an advertisement for

¶76

10

¶77

allotment of shops under the Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme for candidates belonging to SC, ST, and general categories. Under the said scheme, 28 shops were proposed to be allotted at a total consideration of Rs. 44,500/-, payable in monthly installments. The petitioner applied for allotment and was allotted Shop No. 36 vide allotment letter dated 21.11.1997, and possession of the said shop was handed over to her. However, it is emphasized that the allotment was temporary in nature and subject to strict compliance of the conditions stipulated in the allotment letter and agreement executed between the parties. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands. Learned counsel submits that the allotment letter itself contained specific conditions, including mandatory payment of monthly installments of Rs. 400/-, failing which the allotment was liable to be cancelled and the shop could be vacated. Other conditions prohibited change of purpose or transfer of the shop. It is submitted that the petitioner has violated these conditions by failing to make regular payment of instalments, leaving an outstanding rent balance of Rs.71,380/- . Learned counsel further submits that there is a violation of para 3 of the allotment order dated 21.11.1997, as the petitioner has transferred ownership of the shop to another person. During inspection, it was found that the subject shop was being run by another person. Thereafter, a notice dated 26.4.2019 was issued to the petitioner and an inspection was conducted, whereby it

¶78

11

¶79

was found that the rent has not been deposited by the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner was directed to remain present in office of respondents 2 & 3 along with all the relevant documents. She submits that subsequently again a notice (impugned) dated 8.1.2021 was issued to the petitioner regarding handing over the vacant possession of Shop No.36 allotted under the Swalamban Scheme. In the aforesaid notice, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner has been continuously violating the terms and conditions of the agreement/allotment order and further, the petitioner has not paid the rent of Rs.71380/-. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that the action of the respondents is in accordance with the terms of the agreement and applicable law, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. However, learned counsel fairly submits that in the event the petitioner deposits the outstanding rent, the respondents shall consider her application sympathetically and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶80

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the controversy involved in the present writ petition.

¶81

Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted Shop No.36 under the Rent-Cum-Sale Scheme vide allotment letter dated 21.11.1997 and has been in possession of the said shop for a considerable period. The impugned eviction notice dated 08/01/2021 has been

¶82

12

¶83

issued by respondent No. 3 alleging violation of conditions of allotment, particularly on account of non-payment of rent. However, from the record, it is evident that prior to issuance of the impugned notice, no show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to her to explain the alleged default.

¶84

It is a settled principle of law that any administrative or quasijudicial action having civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order is not an empty formality but a mandatory safeguard to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in decisionmaking.

¶85

In the present case, the impugned notice has the effect of depriving the petitioner of her possession and means of livelihood, and therefore, strict compliance with the principles of natural justice was incumbent upon the respondent authorities. In my view, the impugned notice (Annexure P/1) has been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The respondents have proceeded to take a drastic action of eviction without conducting any proper inquiry or affording the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against her. Such an action cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶86

13

¶87

Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned notices (in all the writ petitions) for vacating the subject shops issued by respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed . However, it is made clear that respondents No. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised. In the event such proceedings are initiated, the respondents shall ensure that due opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioners, and a reasoned order is passed strictly in accordance with law.

¶88

With the aforesaid observations/directions, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶91

Shyna Ajay

Raju Ram Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Ram Baghel 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devnath Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhukhan Singh (Since Deceased) through Ramavtar Vs Kaushilya Bai

Pramod Kumar Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Kumar Naik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bindiya Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh