[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Kundleshwar Panigrahi vs Union Of India on 27 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10281
RUKHSAR
BANO
Digitally signed by
RUKHSAR BANO
NAFR
Date: 2026.02.28
15:48:30 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 888 of 2026
1 - Dr. Kundleshwar Panigrahi S/o Shri Goverdhan Panigrahi Aged About 52 Years
(Partner-Cum-Director), Centre For Ground Water Recharge, Residents Of Plot No.
90/a, Sector- 2, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Jal Shakti (MOJS),
Department Of Water Resources, River Development And Ganga Rejuvenation
(Rgngwtri), 18/11, Jamnagar House, Mansingh Road, New Delhi
2 - The Director/ Regional Director Rajiv Gandhi National Ground Water Training
And Research Institute (RGNGWTRI), Central Ground Water Board, Sector- 23,
Tuta, Nava Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Chairman Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) CSMRS Campus, Olof
Palme Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi
... Respondents
(Cause title, as taken from CIS system)
For Petitioner : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate
For Respondents/UOI : Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
27/02/2026
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue appropriate direction to the respondent
authority to decide the petitioner's representation
(Ann.-P/4) at the earliest within appropriate time.
Further, may kindly direct the respondent authority to
withdraw the Notice dated 14.07.2025 and re-issue
new with clarification, in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
the Respondents to adopt a renewal-based framework
grounded in past compliance, professional experience,
and performance evaluation.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased
to pass any order or issue any suitable writ of
superintendence as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
under the circumstances of the case including the cost
of the petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Certificate of
Accreditation (Certificate No. CGWA/RGI/024) (Annexure -P/1) was
issued by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner under the Policy
of June, 2021 as Ground Water Professionals. The certificate is valid
for the period from 01.10.2021 to 30.09.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner
has been practicing lawfully, complying with all regulatory
requirements, reporting obligations and professional standards
prescribed by the competent authority. He further submits that
respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure -P/2)
regarding the extension of validity of accreditation of Ground Water
Professionals, whereby a one-time extension was granted up to
31.03.2026, or until the online accreditation portal being developed by
QCI-NABET becomes fully functional, whichever is earlier. He next
submits that since the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is
valid till 30.09.2026, therefore, he ought not to have been compelled to
seek accreditation as per the new decision taken by the National Board
of Accreditation for Ground Water Professionals in its second meeting
held on 03.07.2025. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner filed a
representation dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure -P/4) before respondent
No.1 through respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievance, but the
same has not been decided yet. Hence, learned counsel submits that,
at this stage, the present writ petition may be disposed of with a
direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to decide the said representation
filed by petitioner. Till such decision is taken, the respondents may be
directed not to take any coercive step against the petitioner till the
validity period of the certificate, i.e., up to 30.09.2026. However,
learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to file a fresh
representation before respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievance.
4. In reply, learned counsel for respondents submits that in the
representation dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure -P/4), the petitioner did not
state the fact as to when the certificate of accreditation was issued to
the petitioner by respondent No.2 and what was its validity period. She
further submits that, if the petitioner files a fresh representation, the
same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
5. Having considered the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and the submissions made by counsel for the respondents,
the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage by granting liberty
to the petitioner to file a fresh representation, mentioning all relevant
facts along with supporting documents, before respondent No.2 within
a period of 15 days from today, along with a copy of this order. It is
further directed that upon filing of such representation, the same shall
be considered and decided by respondent No.2 within a further period
of 30 days from the date of its filing, in accordance with law/rules/
policy. Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner in
respect of the notice dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure -P/2) issued by
respondent No.2.
6. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No
order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Rukhsar
