2026:CGHC:11391-DB Digitally signed SAGRIKA by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL D 10 a : t 3 e 7 : : 2 3 0 6 2 + 6. 0 0 5 3 3 .1 0 1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 982 of 2026 Amit Kumar Agrawal S/o Keshav Ram Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 16 Station Road Sakti District Sakti (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. P.S. Civil Line , Post Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Sakti P.S. Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.)

3 - President Nagar Palika Parishad Sakti P.S. Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.)

4 - Sub Divisional Officer Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General.

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

10/03/2026

1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State, Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek for the following relief(s):

“10.1 To kindly direct the respondents to returned the money total of Rs. 17,00,000/- with interest which was already invested by the petitioner for the construction of the shopping complex.

10.2 To kindly direct the respondent to Vacate the stay which was done by the CMO, Sakti by order dated 25.06.2020 and continue the construction work of the shopping complex which was given to the petitioner.

10.3 To kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for return the money total of Rs. 17,00,000/- for all the work done by the petitioner for construction of commercial shopping complex.

10.4 To direct the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner within a prescribed period.

10.5 Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a citizen of India and a small entrepreneur residing at Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), who runs a construction firm in the name and style of Surajbhan Engineering, Sakti. The petitioner participated in an auction conducted by Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti for construction of a shopping complex consisting of a chain of shops near Purhena Talab, Sakti, and being the lowest bidder was awarded the contract with an estimated value of Rs. 45,01,494/- vide allotment dated 28.09.2019. Thereafter, the Chief Municipal Officer issued a work order dated 25.11.2019 directing the petitioner to commence the construction work, pursuant to which the petitioner started the work and executed construction worth approximately Rs. 25,00,000/-. However, the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti, vide order dated 25.06.2020 stayed the construction work without assigning any sufficient reason. Subsequently, the CMO sought demarcation of the land from the Tahsildar, Sakti, who conducted demarcation on 18.06.2020 and prepared a Panchnama stating that the construction of the shopping complex would neither affect the nearby Talab nor cause any inconvenience to the public. On the basis of the said report, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sakti, vide order dated 23.12.2020 directed the CMO to remove the stay and allow the construction work to resume, and the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, also directed the CMO to vacate the stay and permit continuation of the construction work. Despite the said directions and repeated representations made by the petitioner from time to time, including a representation dated 10.02.2026 seeki