SMT. REKHA SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010318172026 2026:CGHC:38533-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 798 of 2026
Smt. Rekha Singh W/o Dinesh Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Village -
Dheka, Indra Awas, Post - Darrighat, Police Station - Torwa, Tahsil And
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of
Transport, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Transport Commissioner Office of Transport Commissioner,
rd
Indravati Bhavan, 3 Floor, C-Block, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3. Regional Transport Officer Office Of The Regional Transport
(RTO) Lagra, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
Date:
2026.09.02
10:44:02
+0530
For Appellant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE

2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
.09.2026 01
1. Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the State.
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant assailing the order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPC No. 2185 of 2022 ( Smt. Rekha Singh vs. State
of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the writ petition preferred by the
appellant/writ petitioner herein came to be disposed of.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grievance of
the appellant before the learned Single Judge was essentially against
the inaction on the part of the Regional Transport Office, Bilaspur, in
effecting change of address in respect of the vehicle bearing registration
No. UP-72-D-9001. It is submitted that the appellant had purchased the
vehicle for earning livelihood for herself and her family members and,
after bringing the vehicle to Bilaspur from Pratapgarh, had applied for
change of address in the month of May, 2014 after depositing the
requisite quarterly tax.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant

3
that although the quarterly tax was paid up to June, 2014, the
information regarding registration of change of address was issued only
on 13.01.2016, i.e. after a lapse of about one and a half years. During
this period, the vehicle could not be operated on account of the change
of address having not been effected, resulting in financial loss to the
appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was informed that an amount of
Rs.2,64,918/- towards tax was outstanding as on 31.07.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
respondents themselves conducted an inquiry pursuant to the complaint
made by the appellant, and the inquiry report dated 09.10.2019
specifically recorded negligence and lack of responsibility on the part of
the then concerned Branch In-charge of the office of the Regional
Transport Officer, Bilaspur. The report also noticed that the original file
relating to the vehicle was not available in the office and, consequently,
it could not be ascertained as to what action had been taken on the
appellant’s application. It is argued that there is no denial by the
respondents to the findings recorded in the said inquiry report. He also
contended that the learned Single Judge, by order dated 18.06.2026,
had directed the Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur, to remain present
and explain the circumstances leading to the delay, negligence and
inaction in dealing with the appellant’s application and had also called
upon the authorities to explain why exemplary costs of Rs.20,00,000/-
should not be imposed. However, on 23.06.2026, without examining the
matter on its merits, the writ petition was dismissed and the appellant
was relegated to avail the remedy of a civil suit.

4
6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that there was no disputed question of fact
requiring adjudication by a civil Court. The material facts, including the
delay in processing the application and the negligence noticed in the
departmental inquiry, stood admitted and were borne out from the
record. In such circumstances, it is contended that the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised for granting appropriate
relief, including compensation, particularly where the loss suffered by
the appellant was attributable to the inaction and negligence of the
respondent authorities.
7. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order, having been
passed without considering the merits of the appellant’s grievance and
the findings recorded in the inquiry report, is arbitrary and contrary to
the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Single Judge,
according to the appellant, ought to have considered the admitted
material on record and determined whether the appellant was entitled to
appropriate relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction instead of relegating her
to the remedy of a civil suit.
8. Learned State counsel, opposing the appeal, submits that the
learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the controversy involved in
the matter. It is submitted that the question as to whether the appellant
actually suffered the alleged financial loss and, if so, the extent thereof
and its direct attribution to any particular officer would require proper
adjudication on the basis of evidence. It is further submitted that the

5
person allegedly responsible for the delay has not been impleaded as a
party and, therefore, the appellant has rightly been relegated to the
remedy of a civil suit for claiming compensation.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, including the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
10. From the facts available on record, it is apparent that the appellant
had approached the learned Single Judge seeking compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the alleged loss suffered due to delay in
effecting change of address of the vehicle. The record also indicates
that an inquiry was conducted, wherein negligence on the part of the
then concerned Branch In-charge was noticed. However, the said
inquiry report by itself does not determine the actual financial loss
allegedly suffered by the appellant, nor does it quantify the
compensation payable to her.
11. In our considered opinion, merely because certain aspects
relating to the delay and negligence have been noticed in the inquiry
report, it cannot be said that all the questions necessary for
determination of the appellant's claim for compensation stand
conclusively established. The claim for compensation would necessarily
require determination of the nature and extent of loss, the causal
connection between the alleged negligence and such loss, and the
liability, if any, of the person responsible therefor. Such questions are
appropriately capable of adjudication in a properly constituted civil

6
proceeding upon the parties being afforded an opportunity to lead
evidence.
12. We also find that the learned Single Judge had duly considered
the explanation furnished by the concerned authority, including the fact
that the file was entrusted to the then Section In-charge, namely, Prem
Narayan Gupta, and that subsequently the appellant was required to
submit Form No.33 along with the registration certificate. Upon
submission of the requisite form on 04.01.2016, the application was
verified and necessary orders were passed on 13.01.2016. In the
aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge, while noticing the
inquiry report, rightly declined to adjudicate the claim for compensation
in exercise of writ jurisdiction and granted liberty to the appellant to avail
the remedy of a civil suit.
13. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there was
no disputed question of fact, therefore, does not persuade us. The mere
existence of an admitted delay or a finding of negligence in an
administrative inquiry cannot, by itself, lead to a conclusion regarding
the quantum of damages or civil liability. The learned Single Judge was
justified in distinguishing between the administrative aspect of the
matter and the appellant's claim for monetary compensation.
14. We find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge warranting interference in the present intra-Court appeal.
The learned Single Judge has rightly exercised restraint in granting
monetary compensation in writ jurisdiction and has appropriately left the

7
appellant at liberty to pursue the remedy of a civil suit in accordance
with law.
15. Consequently, the present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed . The liberty granted by the learned Single Judge to the
appellant to avail the remedy of a civil suit for claiming compensation
shall remain intact. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the appellant's claim for compensation, and
the same shall be considered by the competent forum in accordance
with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan