IN THE HIGH ‘COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISQARH Wri'f Pem'ion o. é G t o 2006 Indian Broiler Farm, A parmership firm regis‘rered under The Indian Parfnership Ac'r, Through ifs Execu‘rive Director Anjum AM, 5/0 Lure Dr. Iqbai Alvi, Aged abouf 42 years, R/o Anupam Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Chha'r‘risgurh. - Versus — PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Shi’e of Chhaffisgarh, fhe ry. G ? (yy\ awgii’w ’gi;Q¢WA Througph Develo Department men? of Secre‘r'a- & Urban Adminisfmfion, ry. D.K.5. Bhawan, Manfraiaya, \ W Raipur, Chha1‘risgarh. ?$‘®.. The Direcfor, Wi " Deparfmen‘r of Urban Developmen‘r & Adminisrra‘rion, S‘rafe of Chha‘rrisgarh, av“ Raipur, Chhaf‘risgarh. ..,\4€R$ MoW ‘0 N 9: G 3. /,, The Collector, Disfricf: Rajnandgaon, Chhaffisgarh. The Sub Divisional Magisfra‘l’e, Rajnandgaon, Chha'rfisgarh. Municipal Corporafion, Rajnandgaon, Through ifs Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, Chha'H'isgarh. 6. The Commissioner, K. Municipal Corpora‘rion, Rajnandgaon, Chhaf‘lisgarh. (Q The Heama Ofhcer, Municipal Corpora‘rian, Rajmndgaon, Chha‘r'risgarh. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. mihotri, J. W. P. No. 6610 of 2006 Petitioner Indian Bmilcr Farm Vexsus Respondent : State of Chhattisgarh 8a others Shri Rajeev Shn'vastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' N. K. Agalwal, Deputy Advocate General for the Iespondents No. 1 to 5. Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondents No. 5, 6 and ORDER ( 5th December , 2005) 1. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of poultxy fanning -— selling ehicken (dressedfundressed) has filed the instant petition seeking a direction to the respondent No.5 (Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon) to issue licence on the application made by the petitioner, for which licence fees has already been received by the lespondent No.5. 2. Leaxned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2005- 2006 though the Municipal Colporation, Rajnandgaon received the requisite licence fee but on 18.8.2005 an oxder was issued to the petitioner to close its business of selling chicken. That mder was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3964/2005. Since the period of licence, for which the licence fees was received by the Municipal Corpotation, Was expired, therefore, that petition Was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 16.2.2006 for issuing licence for selling W _ chicken, which was received by the respondent No.5 on 17.2.2006 The said application was not considered by the respondent] Corporah'on. Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, learned counsel appealing for the Iespondents/ Corporation submits that the peu'h'oner has applied for the issuance of licence to sell chicken ( only for male bird — called ‘cock’), thus, the petitioner has not made any application for issuance of licence to sell ‘dressed chicken’. By order dated 18.82006 and letter dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure R-5/B) the respondents] Corporation has directed the petitioner not to sell dressed chicken only. beamed counsel further submits that there is no application for grant of licence for sale of dressed chicken and no requisite fess has also been paid for that purpose. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner may make an application with requisite licence fees and in turn the respondents/Municipal Corporation shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law. 5. For the reasons stated above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur