,^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B-: Hon'ble ^hri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble/6hri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellants WritADpeal No.105 of 2011 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. The Under Secretary, Department of Food, Civit Supplies & Consumer Protection, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) The Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) Manga Ram, S/o Shri Kila Ram, aged about 46 years, Proprietor, M/s Sarhul Kerosene Centre, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) The Sarhul Ram Bhagat, S/o Shri Kila Ram, aged about43 years, Director (Sanchalak), M/s Sarhul Kerosene Centre, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) 3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Senior Sales Manager, Tarbahar, Bilaspur (CG) Present: Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellants. Respondents 3. versus 1. 2. Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench)Act, 2006 -\ ORAL JUDGMENT (Deliveredon5thMay,2011) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.: The State is aggrieved by the order dated 6-10-2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in ,Writ Petition (C.)No. 1910/2010. ./^^ '^255( 9^ 2. By the impugned order, the two orders passed by the concerned authorities, i.e., order dated 1-4-2010 (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition) passed by the concerned Minister in appellate jurisdiction and order dated 7-12-2009 (Annexure P-2 in the writ petition) passed by the Collector have been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Collector to examine all the facts afresh after giving notice to respondent No.4 (respondent No.3 herein) also and pass an order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including the respondent No-4/respondent No.3 herein in accordance with law. By the order dated 7-12-2009 (Annexure P-2 in the writ petition), the Collector has cancelled the wholesale distributorship licence and forfeited the security amount deposited by the writ petitioners and the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed. 3. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants submits that there was no necessity to remand the matter to the Collector, however, he also does not dispute that a show-cause notice was not issued to the respondent No.4/respondent No.3 herein before passing the order dated 7-12-2009 (Annexure P-2 in the writ petition) by the Collector. 4. Be that as it may, since the learned Single Judge has taken a view that it was also necessary to hear the respondent No.4/respondent No.3 herein and has remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal for hearing 3 ^-7- filed against the aforesaid remand order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and the samej^di^nissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal