Cf-1'y^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlSGARH ATBILASPUR. W.P. (Cl No. •°^ I ysy ; OF 2007 v Petitioner ^ ^- .&ff/^s{~ ^y^' ../y^ •9' y <? Respondents ^o' ..^ -I' A • ^^^t4 ^%L^.0'^ ^0' ^ ::/Smt. Sheela, D/o. Raja Ram and W/o. Dhananjay Singh Rajpoot, aged about 42 years, R/o. Beside Bridge No.2, near Rajesh Tent House, Ward No.61, Maroda Tank, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) President of Sulabh Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Matyadit, Ward No.61, Maroda Tank, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary- Department of Civil Supply, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur JC.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub ^ivision (Food), District Durg (C.G.) Collector (Food), Disti-ict Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION_OF^NDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORAm ETC. z>- ail^l.'n Vw* wnsiroi 'sKw ^" 3'esr •^ww'f, ®Tfl<ns,Ri<?i]y^< . '-^-p.t.p,^. 3^oo *<i*iwi **<!* """"""""""""""""""""•"•"""••"• W.P-^3^)^': sn^r tisw (4'if-j«<<w) WIRR^ltel 311^1 23.5.2007 ^t<LiI<?i<fli TnTT^ff ^f "f^t' ^^fT ^sffin 3n^i y, CQ\I Shri Uttam Pandey, ShriV.V.S.Murthy, Dy uisel for fhe petitouer. Adovcate General for ttie State. Heard. Office has raised an c|bjection that fhe petitioner is a Sdcie^^represented by its| nieiabers of fhe Society ^ ineiaber shaU pay a separat^ A perusal of the ^ President, ttierefore, a list of |iould be produced aad each Court fee. etition would show that the petitloner is Sint. Sheela Ip/o Raja Ram and it is not a Society, rather she is the Rr^sident offhe said society as per the avenaeuts of the petitio^i, therefore, the default appears to be incorrect. The same stands reiacjived. The petition be registejred as a regular writ petition. Learaed couiisel for ti|ie petitioner subiaits fhat he has claimed a very lunited r^lief i.e. the application dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure P 2), which is pejidiag for consideration before fhe |;oncenied aufh.ority and is iu relation to allotment of fljie Fair Pnce Shops, should be disposed of at fhe earliest,| preferably wifhiu. a period of 30 jeen disposed of so far. is not opposed by fhe State days, as the sam.e has nott This lunited prayer counsel. However, his sufiinission is fhat the application GRPRJ —. FS/246—2/2007 — 50.UOO. XI-HG—78 3^- "i||q|(>i<i|, SiTfl'M'Ko, Rlciiyy c^fc P^ ^ oo W^vt[ *MI<* -•—••——••---••-"-"---•-•^ 200 7 W-^-9 S2.)o'/os7/ an^ff'w% (1pf^sRti) /. "~ 311^1 ^I K-li* WIT 311^1 **<i=b A J^n//^. 5Kll<!;R^fl 3Tt^?T '2^'- appears to be filed dipsoed ofby now. The apprehensiojn In tbe facts and is finaUy disposed AnTiexure P-2 has decided wifhia a pe^-iod production of certifi^f conceraed cjn 19.4.2005 and it may have been ofvlnfh ndt ^ authority al^ng If the appMcaticjn \A)iU. directioUihsBeno force ife stailds The petition In view of fhe during suinuier stand disposed of Certified copy a^ vacatton ^)i*iTyi<ftTt TnTi^f ^f^'fe1^ <F^t^R '^affinaD^i appears to be genuine. ;ircumstances of the case, fhe petition a direction fhat if the application, been decided so far, that shatt be of 30 days froni fhe date of copy of fhis order before fhe wifh. fhe copy of this writ petition. has already been diposed of, this ^ainst fhe authority concemed. fiaaBy disposed of. ^bove, I.A.No.03 for hearmg the case and I.A.No.04 for urgent hearing per rules. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge