HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BSLASPUR Writ Petition .(C) Ho. 1138 of 2008 PETJTIONER f— RESPONDENTS IViaa Yashoda Mahila Sva Sahayata Samooh Ward No.6, Supela Bhitei, Dt'stt. Durg (C.G), through ihe Pres'dent Smt. Sap/lia Devi Saw w/o Shri Lakhan Saw, aged about 35 years, R/o Motllal Chowk, Ward No.6, Supeia, BhiSal Distt. Durg (C.G) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Civi! Supplies, iVlantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). The Coilector (Food), Distt. Durg (C.G). The Controiier Food Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G). WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF iNDIA 'c.. Appearance: Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate, for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (22.02.2008) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard finaity with the consent of the parties. in exercise of powers conferred under Clause 9(2) of the C.G. PubSJc Dlstribution System (Control) Order <Nih»Bi 2004, the Food Controiler, Distt. Durg allotted a Fair Price Shop to the petitioner on 28.7.2007 (Annexure P-3). The said aiiotment aiong-wlth !6 other ailotments were canceiied by impugned order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Collector, Durg, on the ground that for aiiotment of the aforesaid shops, permission was not obtained from the Colfector. Copy of the impugned order is flied as Annexure P-4. %., W.P.(QNo. 1138/2008 ^) ^ao/ Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that thereafter, out 17 fair price shops, six shops were again aliotted to same persons by Cotlector on their representations but the shop of the petltioner has not been re-ailotted and his representation is stlij pending before the Coilector. He submits that it has been mentioned in the memo dated 22.12.2007 (Annexure P-5) that these six shops have been realJotted to the persons on the guideiines of the Hjgh Court. He submlts that in fact the High Court in VV.P(C) No.1965/2007 has directed for disposal ofthe application of the peti'tioner (petitioner of the said case) regarding aiiotment of the Fair Price Shop and on that direction, the shop was realiotted to the said petltioner after disposal of his appiication. Learned counsel for the petitloner submits that a sJmiSar treatment should also be given to the petitioner. After hearing counsei for the parties and atter going through the contents of the writ petition and further that six cancetfed shops have been reallotted to the concerned persons, 1 am of the opinion that this petltion should be disposed of wrth a direction to the Collector to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in light of the facts pteaded by hlm in this writ petition. Accordingiy, this wrlt petltion is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shali fi!e another copy of the representation along-with copy of the writ petitlon and copy of the earlier order passed by the High Court before the concerned Codector and if such a representation is fiied within 15 days from today, the concerned Collector shall dispose of the same withln a period of two rrionths from the date ofsaid representation. With the above observations^afew^ this petition stands disposed of. ' ———-— Sd/- SumlKumarSinha Judge