TH HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR - w;P.(CI N0. 57$] /20‘10 (8.3;) PETII‘I‘ONER Maa Vaibhav Laxmi,.ahi1au ' ' ‘ Upbhokta, ‘ ,Bhandar Manendragarh, ’ District Kdrea (C.G.), through * Th presidént, Smt; Madhhfi V Jaiswal, W/‘o Shri Iliixmikant Jaiswal, aged about 36 years, R/o Ward No. 20, Civil ’ Lihe Manendragarh ‘Tahsil ‘l Manendragarh D1stt Korea (C G ) ' VERSUS g?” wra- a‘ _:l. State Chhattisgarh of RESPNjDENTs . ' V Tr '‘ T Serar; iist o d Ci uies uv ‘ Prtectio eaent; .. I istt. hawan, Vaipu‘ ajr (.) e d . ‘ oro’ller, Deartmen of od ivil upples ' an onsuers o Raipur‘. (G h oo Of Koa , a fD’it ea (co Si d cm Prtection C..) Th D otr Ke e istrict Clleco, ora Di a (C(} stt. Kore ..) Te Fd ficer, re st. Kor ) ‘ " h ub viia Off Te S Disonl icer (Renue) . andarh, Distt. Korea (C’G.) LE M ‘ e o ‘ I hough — he cety Mhry‘ f , Fon ivl. Sppl and Consnier ’ on Dprtm D.KS D‘ B Rr, w Rpu C.G Th Foo 5 Cht l‘ I pt Fo C‘ ev Menrag ) (z WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IGH COURT OF CHHATnsGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ WRIT PETITION (C) No 50m OF 2010 ' ' (SB Hon ble Mr Satush K Agnlh atn J ) PréSénf ~i Shn Rahul Mushra Advocate forthe petlttoner Shn Arun Sac Government Advocate for the State 1"*’ (Passed on thus 28 day of Juty ‘ 201 1) '1‘; ' Learned counsel appeanng for the pethoner submits that the impugned ‘ communication dated 1608 2010 (Annexure P-1) from the Coilector " Konya to Sub Dmswnal OfFcer (R) Manendragarh (for short ‘the SDO’) whereby, the SDO has been directed to cancel the atlotment of farr price V , shw oftthe; eetlt'qner: .V‘S_§°ntrta.try,.t°t the statutory proYiSims, of thee . 4 Chhaxtisgam Public, Distribution. System Controfe‘r‘den, 2004 «crown “the 5{‘ ‘r 0rden..2QQ4'9- ‘ 2. _‘ Learned eounsel appearing for the State submits thet the communication V dated 16.b8.201Q, doee not provideufor‘straight cancellation of the shop, Without following the provisions of law as enshrined in Ciause 16 of the order 2004 Thus this order cannot be Impugned at this stage As a matter of tact no other person has been appomted and no order to the J ' r petitionermot to continue with the fair price shop has been passed He I further submits that the enqutry Is in progress and the hnat orders shall be t passed only after enquiry as contemplated under provrsrons of Ciause 16’ of the Order 2004 rs complied . " i 3. ‘ Admittedly, there Is no communication to the petitioner or no copy of this communication has been endorsed to the petitioner How the petitioner Is . 1‘ r r r " " In possessron of internal communication between the Collector and the . H , Petitioner v.1 , Maa Valbhav Mahlla ‘ V " ‘- " ~ Bhandar . r Versus i 1 -Re‘spondents », , _. W , State of Chhattisgarh&0thers 2 SDO raises a question mark when admittedly no ordea' has been passed , and the petmoner has not been directed to close the fan price shop “(The petition Is premature as no umpugned order has been passed to close 'the farr pnce shop, as according to learned State ceunset the enquiry process Is on and final order ls yet to be assed Further, the practrce of . . approachrng prematurely and misleadrng the Court should be avmded As such the wrrt petltlon Is dismissed No 1order asto costs . I l l W a Sd/- >. I Satish K. Agnihotri Judge