:twy w^'.f O Q { IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (C) NO.L10>^ /2011 PETITIONER Vs RESPONDENT ..- :^^ ^-•^^ /- ^•;'c\^;-". ...-" ^^ ...•<np\^ .^ ^:y^.- '^'^- Bhagirathi Kashyap, son of Shri Akhan Kashyap, aged 32 years, Proprietor of M/s Krishna Rice Mill, resident of Chorbhatti, Tahsil Paragarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the . Secretary, Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumers Protection, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. The Director, Food Civil Supplies and Consumers Protection, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 3. The Collector (Food Branch), Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^0F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ mC-H COURT OFCIjHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIOffiR WRITPE'nTIONfONo. 4915 of2011 Bhagirathi 3'Cashyap. VERSUS State ofChhattis.garh & Others. RESPONDENTS : V/RIT PETHION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AsnihotrLJ, Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Arua Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDERIQRAL) (Passsd on 26th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 28.07.2011 (Almexure P/l) passed by the Food Officer, Janjgir Champa, is bad in law pn the ground that the same was passed without affording an opportutlity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case, as is evident ftom the impugned order itselfthat there is no discussion about the case ofthe petitioner. 2. Shri Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that if it is so, fhe petitioner may make a rqiresentation to the respondent authorities for reconsideration of his case . If a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, fresh order shall be passed, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a furtfaer period of three weeks. 3. Ia view of the above submission- the impugned order dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) is quashed reserving Uberty to the petitioner to make a representation and the respondent authorities shall, thereafter, reconsider the case of the petitioner, after aifording proper opportunity of hearing, and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt ofthe representation. 4. Accordingiy, fhe writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Aniit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ ".