M/S Shivganga Comport Zone At Lalpur Raipur vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shivganga Comport Zone, through its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent authorities, specifically respondents No. 1 and 2, to pass a reasoned and speaking order concerning a representation submitted by the petitioner and a personal hearing conducted on May 9, 2025, before a departmental committee. The petitioner contended that despite a previous order from the Court on March 5, 2025, requiring the competent authority to decide the matter, no final order had been passed, leading to the current petition due to the inaction of the respondent authorities. The State counsel submitted that the matter had been heard and was under consideration, with a final order expected within 30 days.

Held

The Court held that since the matter had already been heard by the competent authority and was stated to be under consideration, keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to respondent No. 2 (Commissioner Excise) to consider and decide the pending matter by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. This decision was to be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order, provided the matter had not already been decided. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that respondent No. 2 was to decide the matter independently. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities, particularly respondents No. 1 and 2, have failed to comply with the previous order of this Court dated March 5, 2025, by not passing a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's representation and personal hearing within a reasonable time? (Question of law and fact, concerning compliance with court orders and administrative delay). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities have been inactive and have failed to pass a final order despite the lapse of considerable time since the previous court order and the personal hearing. This inaction has necessitated the filing of the present writ petition. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel submitted that the matter has already been heard by the competent authority and is currently under consideration. They assured the court that a final order would be passed within 30 days.