Va^ (^=- l^s^ IN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (c) N0: OF 2009 PETITIQNER RESPONbENTS <,< ,- ^^ ^ ^<^'> ^y ^eeA Nitin Agarwal, son of Shri R.K. Agarwal, son of Shri Ramkishore Agarwal, aged about 29 years, resident of Infront of High Court, Bilaspur (C6). Vs <-' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, bepartment of Industries, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. ^'" 2. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, an undertaking of the State of Chhattisgarh, through its Managing Director, L.I.C. Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C6) 3. The Chief Manager, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Branch Office Tifra, Bilaspur. 4. The Chief Manager, District Commercial Trade & Industry Centre, Bilaspur. l^ V PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA B' Kl1 wa ^SS^S:';^ r ^ / Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 868 of2009 Nitin Agarwal Versus 1° Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyerfor the State. Shri Kasif Shakeel, Advocate for the respondent No.2&3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 19th Day of Ju!y, 2010) 1. The case of the petitioner is that the application dated 13/02/2007 (Annexure P/4) of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no land is available with the respondent Corporation for allotment to him, not on any other ground. However, in the return filed by the respondent Corporation, on the contrary, show different reasons i.e. firstly that the application was incomplete, as the required fee was not deposited along with the application and secondly, the land as required by the petitioner, was not available for allotment. 2. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there were several cases where the applicants were asked to deposit requisite fee, if they had made application without requisite fee. In the present case no intimation was given to him for depositing requisite fee. Thus, it is a clear case of discrimination. 3. On the other hand, Shri Shakeel, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that it is not a case that any other person has been directed to deposit requisite fee and despite incomplete application, the allotment was made to them. There is no iand avaiiable with the respondent Corporation. Hovi'ever, if the petitioner makes a —^' '"'.•-•':/~'\ ;'• 4. 5. 2 »-7-•V fresh application in proper form with requisite fee, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, as and wheh land as per requirement of the petitioner, is available, the appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun