M/S. Sunita Finlease Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:8633

¶3

RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.02.20 14:01:22 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 706 of 2026

¶7

1 - M/s. Sunita Finlease Limited Through Authorized Signatory Hemlal Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Sevaram Chandrakar, About 55 Years, R/o Sector - 2, Road No. 1, Professor Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶11

2 - Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Chhattisgarh Real Estate Development Authority Through Registrar, Shastri Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Directorate Of Town And Country Planning Through Secretary, Directorate Of Town And Country Planning Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Nazul Officer Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate
	assisted by Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate.
For State/Res. Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6	: Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Adv.
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For RespondentNo.4	: Mr. Pranjal Agrawal,Advocate

¶18

2

¶19

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

18/02/2026

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

¶24

“(1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities to issue Completion Certificate & Occupation Certificate in favor of the petitioner with respect to the project of the petitioner namely Sunita Park Phase -I for Block A, B, C & D within a period of 2 months and further directing the respondent authorities to release the mortgage property of Block A, in the interest of justice.

¶25

(2) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindlyl be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 (RERA) not to impose penalties and they may further be directed not to initiate any coercive proceedings against the petitioner.

¶26

(3) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s project i.e. Sunita Park Phase – I, Labhandih, Block A, B, C & D, was completed on 20.03.2017. After inspection, respondent No.3 released the mortgaged properties of Blocks B, C & D; however, the

¶28

3

¶29

mortgage in respect of Block A has not been released, nor has the completion certificate been issued. He further submits that respondent No.3 inspected the aforesaid site on 02.06.2018, 04.07.2018, 07.03.2019, and 15.04.2019. On each occasion, respondent No.3 pointed out different deficiencies, despite the work having been completed on 20.03.2017. Learned Sr. counsel also submits that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to carry out a fresh inspection, within specified period, in the presence of petitioner’s representative, to point out all deficiencies, if any, so that the petitioner may rectify the same.

¶30

In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, who is the main contesting party, submits that apart from the aforesaid four inspections, further inspections of the petitioner’s site were carried out on 23.01.2021 and 06.02.2026, and various deficiencies were found in Block A. Learned counsel fairly concedes that he has no objection to allow the limited prayer of the Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner. Further, on the date to be fixed by this Court, a fresh inspection shall be carried out in the presence of petitioner’s representative, wherein all defects, if any, shall be pointed out and necessary documents i.e. panchnama etc. , shall be prepared regarding any deficiencies found.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, and 4 to 6 have no objection to the aforesaid limited prayer.

¶32

As contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the said project, namely Sunita Park Phase – I, Labhandih, Block A, B, C & D , was completed on 20.03.2017. Thereafter, inspections have been carried out six times by respondent No.3. It is also submitted that on

¶33

4

¶34

four occasions, different deficiencies were pointed out each time. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that after 15.04.2019, inspections were again conducted on 23.01.2021 and 06.02.2026, during which various deficiencies were found in Block A. It is indeed surprising that despite multiple inspections, new deficiencies have been pointed out on each occasion. If any deficiencies existed, the same ought to have been pointed out in one or two inspections. However, six inspections have been carried out, with different deficiencies being pointed out each time.

¶35

Having considered the aforesaid facts and the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to carry out an inspection of Block A within a period of 02 months in the presence of a representative of the petitioner to point out all deficiencies in one or two inspections. It is further observed that first inspection be carried out within 15 days and if any deficiency(s) is found, the petitioner shall be permitted to rectify the same. Thereafter, a further inspection shall be conducted to verify whether deficiencies have been rectified or not and if any deficiency is left to be rectified, then further time may be granted to the petitioner to rectify the same.

¶36

It is made clear that the petitioner should not be kept in a state of uncertainty, rather the entire exercise ought to have been completed by respondent No.3 in a fair and diligent manner in discharge of his duties. It is further directed that the entire exercise, including granting an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the defects, shall be completed within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order.

¶37

5

¶38

As submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, since the mortgaged plots and flats of Blocks B, C & D have already been released on 06.07.2017, therefore, respondent No.3 is also directed to consider the issuance of the Completion and Occupation Certificate in accordance with law and applicable rules.

¶39

With aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶40

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶43

Rukhsar

M/S. Sunita Finlease Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sunita Finlease Limited 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

Mahendra Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dogendra Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aatmaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bank of Baroda Vs the Collector and District Magistrate

M/S J.S. Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Smt. Motim Sahu Vs Bank of Baroda