^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. Writ Petition (Cl No. 4754 of2010 Petitioner Deepak Patel, S/o Govind Bhai Patel, aged about 50 years, having business at Patel Chawal Udyog, Lakhanpuri, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) Vs. Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Sscrstary, Department of Food, Ch/i! Supplies & Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ChhatUsgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Raipur 3. The Coliector, Dist. Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 4. The Tehsiklar, Charama, Dist. Uttar Bastar, Kanker Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India Present: Shri Adhiraj Surana, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri U.N.D. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25.08.2010) PerDhirerxlra Mishra. J 1. By this writ petitfon, the petitioner has assailed impugned order Annexure P-10 dated 24th July, 2010, passed by the Collector, North Bastar Kanker, whereby, the petitioner, who is a Rice Miller and engaged in custom milling has been blacklisted until further orders and it has been further directed that he shall not participate in purchases/sale in any Krishi Upaj Mandis and there would be ban on the petitioner to run his rice mill or to give it on lease/rent to any other person for doing any business. ,{i '^ 3 •• ;'A '^, "'^. ' .^. ^. "A. t- '( • ';..' ??? r^ .^' .f'n. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that before blacklisting the petitioner, no show cause notice was issued to him by the Coltector and he has also been banned from leasing out his rice mill to others, which is againstthe settled principtes of law laid down in this regard. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that as perclause 11.5 of the agreement of Annexure P-2, any dispute arising out of the agreement is to be adjudicated by the Secretary, State ofChhatMsgarh, Department of Food, Ch/il Supplies & Consumer Protection, and his decision is to be final and binding. However, the petitioner w'rthout approaching the above authority has directly filed this petitiori, therefore, the same is not maintainable. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the parties submit that this petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Food, Ch/il Supplies & Consumer Protection, as per the provisions of the agreement and in the meanwhile the impugned order whereby petitioner has been blacklisted may be stayed till the decision of the representation. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the provision contained in clause 11.5 of the agreement of Annexure P-2; the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to appreach the concerned Secretary as per clause 11.5 ofthe agreement for redressal of his grievance against the order Annexure P-10, within a period of10 days from today. On receipt of such representation, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same within a period of three months, in accordance with !aw and on its own merits. In the meanwhile, impugned order dated 24 July, 2010 (Annexure P-10) to the extent that the petitioner has been blacklisted shalt be kept in abeyance. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- -I R.N. Chandrakar Judge