Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 03/08/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Avinash Rai, 31‑year‑old resident of Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondents – State of Chhattisgarh (Secretary, Department of Excise, Commercial Tax), Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (C.S.M.C.L.), General Manager, C.S.M.C.L. Division Flying Squad Bastar Division, District Manager, C.S.M.C.L. Sukma District, and Deputy Commissioner, Excise Circle Raipur.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (WPC No. 4005 of 2026) challenging the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in a blacklist of employees on the online attendance portal (excise.cg.nic.in) of C.S.M.C.L.
  • Allegations: The petitioner was appointed Chief Salesman at Foreign Wine Shop, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, and performed duties without complaint. The respondents allegedly listed him as a blacklisted employee, incorrectly assigning him to the Government Wine Shop Konta, Sukma, a posting he never held. No departmental enquiry was conducted before the blacklisting. RTI information confirms no appointment or posting at Konta, Sukma as of 01‑04‑2026. The blacklist list (Annexure P‑1) is claimed to be illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law.
  • Court Observations: The court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, notes the absence of any enquiry and the factual inaccuracy of the blacklist entry. It acknowledges that the petitioner has filed a representation before the authorities, which remains pending.
  • Directions: The court disposes of the writ petition and directs the competent authority of the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation in accordance with law. The authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within 45 days from receipt of a copy of this order.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed without any merit-based adjudication.
  • The competent authority is mandated to independently evaluate the pending representation and issue a reasoned order within the stipulated 45‑day period.
  • The court explicitly refrains from commenting on the substantive merits of the petitioner’s claim.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Employment Dispute, Administrative Review