2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9223
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 462 of 2021
WPC No. 1252 of 2021
WPC No. 463 of 2021
WPC No. 465 of 2021
WPC No. 466 of 2021
WPC No. 467 of 2021
WPC No. 469 of 2021
WPC No. 468 of 2021
WPC No. 547 of 2021
Yamini Gonnadey D/o Rajendra Gonnadey
Kumari Pratima Charya D/o Shri Binyamin Charya
Tarsisiyus Ekka S/o Simon Ekka
A. Venkateshwar S/o Ramaswami
Sukhmati Nag D/o Kanhai Kumar
Badri Prasad More, S/o Late D.R. More
Premlata Bambode D/o K.R. Bambode
Devnath Kashyap S/o Alate Chaitu Ram Kashyap
Balwant Gonnadey S/o Kishan Gonnadey
--- Petitioner(s)
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department
Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta And Vikas Nigam Maryadit (A Undertaking Of Government Of Chhattisgarh)
Zila Antyavasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur
Collector Bastar, President, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate and Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Advocate General
For Respective Respondents : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate, Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate, Mr. R. L. Rajak, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate and Ms. Siddhidatri Kashi, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
09/04/2026
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shayna
Order on Board
1. 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. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 462 of 2021 is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the present batch of matters and in the said writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :
“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.
10.2. That, the impugned notice dated 07.01.2021 may kindly be set aside/quashed and the petitioner be allowed to continue with the peaceful possession of the shop in question.
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.”
2. 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 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 09.12.2003 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 month of December, 2020, certain persons visited the shop premises in the absence of the petitioner, and thereafter, an eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 came to be issued alleging non-payment of outstanding rent amounting to Rs. 57,240/-. 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 representations before respondents No. 3 and 4 requesting them not to disturb her posses