Om Vasudeo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010259652026

2026:CGHC:29233

NAFR

Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 3596 of 2026

¶8

1 - Om Vasudeo S/o Shri B. P. Vasudeo Aged About 20 Years R/o Boys Hostel, Room No. F-15, Government E. Raghvendra Rao Science College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Shiv Raj Tirkey S/o Shri Rajeshwar Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Boys Hostel, Room No. F-10, Government E. Raghvendra Rao Science College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2 - Commissioner-Cum-Director Directorate of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3 - Collector and District Magistrate Bilaspur Collectorate Building, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5 - Principal Government E. Raghvendra Rao Science College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

2

¶18

6 - M/s Fun Fair Amusement Park Through Its Proprietor, Shri Mohammad Saim, Camp 1, Shubhas Chowk, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

(Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.)

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Varchasva Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G.

¶22

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

13/07/2026

¶25

This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Bilaspur in Case No. 202604072100025/B 121/2025-26. The petitioners are further assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the no objection issued by the Principal on 20.06.2026. Further the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs as claimed in para 10 are as under:-

¶26

10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record, orders and proceeding pertaining to the issuance of the order dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) from the Collector and District Magistrate, Bilaspur for its kind perusal.

¶27

10.2That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 in case No. 202604072100025/B-121/2025-26.

¶28

10.3 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the no objection dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent No. 5.

¶29

3

¶30

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

¶31

and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶32

Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners is that the respondent No. 6 preferred an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur on 12.01.2024 for allotment of playground of the Government E. Raghvendra Rao Science College, Bilaspur for the period from 30.04.2026 to 08.06.2026 from 4:00 PM till 10:00 PM for holding a Fun Fair Amusement Park Mela. Thereafter, on the said application, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur called upon the Principal, Government E. Raghvendra Rao Science College, Bilaspur to submit his no objection certificate with regard to allotment of the concerned land for organizing the Fun Fare Amusement Park Mela. The principal Government E. Raghvendra Rao Science College, Bilaspur vide its letter dated 07.04.2026 objected to the grant of the playground for holding any mela since it adversely affects the academic and sports acitivies of college and further that the college play ground is meant for sports and other academic activities and the same cannot be given for any commercial activity. Based on the said objection submitted by the college, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur vide its order dated 10.04.2026 rejected the application preferred by the respondent No. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur respondent No. 6 has preferred a writ petition bearing WPC No. 1975 of 2026 before the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 24.04.2026 dispose off the WPC No. 1975 of 2026 directing the Collector to consider the grievance of the petitioner therein and pass an appropriate order. In light of the order passed by this Court, the Collector, Bilaspur took up the matter and vide order dated

¶33

4

¶34

08.05.2026 directed the college to allot 120×90 meters of area of the playground which has a concrete base adjoining the music college to be allotted to respondent No. 6 for organizing the Fun Fare Amusement Park.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition has been preferred assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Bilaspur in Case No. 202604072100025/B-121/2025-26 (Annexure P- 1), as well as the no-objection certificate dated 20.06.2026 issued by the Principal (Annexure P-2).

¶36

At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that the instant writ petition is thoroughly devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. He further submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived as no legal, statutory, or fundamental right of the petitioners has been infringed. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any personal, individual, or legal injury caused to them by the impugned order. In the absence of the violation of any enforceable legal right, the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He next submits that the Collector, Bilaspur, passed the reasoned administrative order dated 08.05.2026 strictly in compliance with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in WPC No. 1975/2026. The order was passed after systematically considering the administrative requirements, the objections raised by the college, and the recreational needs of the locality. As a well-considered, reasoned administrative decision, it does not call for any judicial interference. He further contends that that Annexure P/1 itself establishes that on earlier occasions as well, the college playground area was permitted to be

¶37

5

¶38

used for organizing temporary socio-cultural events and fairs. The temporary permission was granted by the competent authority after analyzing all administrative requirements and balancing college dependencies. Thus, the petitioners cannot sustainably contend that such temporary use of a portion of the ground is legally impermissible. It is respectfully submitted that the temporary conditional interest. The College administration has historically faced permission is rooted in broader public and institutional financial constraints regarding the complete development and high-cost maintenance of the playground sports infrastructure. The revenue generated from such controlled. temporary allotments is targeted exclusively toward the overall development, infrastructural upgrade. and maintenance of the sports facilities of the College. Hence, the institutional decision directly benefits the student community at large. It is further submitted that the administrative permission is highly conditional and protected by strict safety The competent authority has imposed stringent safeguards, including the mandatory deposit of a substantial security/earnest amount, the strict obligation to restore the playground area to its original state post-event, the implementation of rigorous public safety measures, and absolute liability on the organizer for any damage caused to public property. Thus, all necessary precautions have already been put in place to protect the interests of the institution and the students. It is critically submitted that the Collector has not allotted or locked up the entire playground. Only a limited 120 x 90 meters concrete-based portion adjoining the Music College has been approved for temporary execution, leaving the primary playing arena and academic areas entirely unaffected. Therefore, the petitioners'

¶39

6

¶40

apprehension regarding the complete deprivation of sports space is factually incorrect and exaggerated. It is respectfully submitted that the initial operational period under the Collector's order dated 08.05.2026 (i.e., 30.04.2026 to 08.06.2026) has already run its course and expired. Regarding the modified timeline subsequently requested by Respondent No. 6 vide representation dated 19.05.2026 (seeking a fresh period from 20.07.2026 to 30.08.2026), that NOC by principal as per p/2 is subject to permission granted by district administration. Consequently, the challenge directed against Annexure P/2 is wholly premature and speculative. Annexure P/2 is merely an internal conditional communication indicating the preliminary terms and conditions subject to which an allotment could potentially materialize. It does not execute a final right in favor of Respondent No. 6, nor does it generate any prejudice to the petitioners. The relevant mandatory text of the condition explicitly reads as follows:

¶41

" ज ि �लाप ्र शासनस े कार ्य� कमकीअन ्र मत ु ि �प ्र ाप ्त होन े परहीखलम े ै दानअ ं त ि �मरप ू

¶42

स े आव ं ट ि "�ट ि कर ्य ा�ाएगा।अनमत ु ि �पत ्र कीकॉपीमहाट ि वद ्य ालर ्य म ें �माकरना "

¶43

होगा।

¶44

Unless final operational clearance is issued by the competent State authorities, no cause of action survives or arises for adjudication before this Court.

¶45

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners, being students of the college, have approached this Court with the grievance that an amusement park ought not to be permitted to operate within the college premises, even for a limited period.

¶46

7

¶47

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the submissions advanced, this Court finds that the permission granted by the concerned Collector vide order dated 08.05.2026 was valid only for a specified period, which has since expired. Thereafter, the Principal issued a no-objection certificate dated 20.06.2026, which is expressly subject to the permission to be granted by the concerned Collector for a limited period of time and that too after the college hours i.e., from 7 pm to 10 pm. In such circumstances, if the petitioners are aggrieved by any proposed grant of permission, it would be open to them to raise their objections before the concerned Collector. Upon receipt of such objections, the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶48

With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶49

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶50

U.K. Raju

Om Vasudeo v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Vasudeo 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

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikhat Parveen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sohaga Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tekram Mande Vs State of Chhattisgarh