- "T~.^~ 3 6 v'- ;a o~e sv- 99 aa IN THE HON'BLE HISH COURT OF CHMATTIS6ARH AT BlLASfUfi. WftIT PETITION N0.1443/20Q1 PeTITIQNEB^ j Vinad Kunar Agrawal and another 8ESPONOENTS vs. Union of India and others APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT N0.4. TO mMPLY THE INIERIK QRDER DATED 16-8-20(ll AND PURCHASE BOILED BICE AS P£R LEVY POLICJ'. BSIBJBBIISil:ljSBK^:?'1;% Bii.;fii!ii]iii?aa!i3»RSi!:-;®%:%";<r.;:'..;'; Kg' lgiiii';iF''?' .:;g'3r^[T3T?R(,^%ffipi^' frasti(: WritPetJ.ttonNo. 1443/2001 i-iiwn ai<<ra» 31li?I'?RI telfr •ailft'CT- iCTWgffia '»>, ^•~<-. I H":i1iE"M 27/9/2001 Mj.shlca., l^rned counsel for petitioner. ilnstructJ.oRS froin Shri A.s, Gaharwar Shri Db-lrenelEa. Sbri OBH. Deo, on for respoadentno.l. Sbsi Rajeev ShrJ.vas[tava, leaci»d counsel fac the responderit no.2. Shri B.p. Gupta,' ie|arned counsel for respondenfcs nos.3 & 4 (FCI). O R On 16/8/2001 noti.ee 'fl^lTFRif'? TS^t <fa<^l< %'37N»T3TI^T D E R was issued and an interim order was passed to the effect th^t until the next date of hearing the Impugned order dated 30|/7/2001 (Annexure-P/10) issued by tbe District Manager, shjall remain suspended. It ia con- tended by Sbri Dhirendra Mijshra, learred counsel for tbe petitioner that the petitic^aer bad brougbt and unloaded qaAntaU o£ boiled ric|e ia the premises of F.C.I at ,. At this stage, Mr. p.P. Gupta, learned counsel foe respondents nos• 3 and 4 si4»mits that some quantity was earlier deposited and some jaore quantity was subsequently deposited. It is also furt^er contended by Shri Supta ttiat £0: want of productionj of-rice could not be cleposi|ted) [^%^fe?( .2 (9 1.1 —/ B1.K 3ff^?T tR^? ('^f^Sl^y ) 3;i^?rs;! I^Tf^" STK?T W^F^ ffT^T. sn^i'^RIIW ^ft'B 4;i^!F"i'4ir1 r^V^ ^ f§t€1'~<^?cK i; 3rf:a" 3?'^; • • «i> ]• • Shri Mishra that productijon certificate duly obtaiaed frcxn tho Competent Authorjity has since been submittedo It is further submitted bt ! interim order passed by t| concerned Authority ought t,he supply of rlce according to Mr. Mishra,, about 15 days the trucks loss was also sustaihed b •i Shri Mishra that in view o£ his Coart on 16/8/2801, the to haye verifieAand accepte<< th^ writ petitioner. Pov "'er, llearned counsel for the petitioner, pere lying there and in the process tbe writpetitioner. According toMr.Gupta, learned coutisel for respondents nos. 3 and 4, upon verification, if ric^ supplJ.ed by the writ petitioner meets the minium standard^ there is no reason to reject. However, it is contended jthat if ri.ee thus supplied is not good in terms of speclfie^tioa/standard laid down in this regard, then the Authorit^ bas no alternative, but to reject. Xt appears that I need nojt glve any finding as re^^rds the quality of rice. However^ sl.nce rice is also perishable goody, the Competent Auth^rity should immediately .iri^ and take fi.nal dae.i.sion ojE acceptance or rejectioa of the supply already made by th^ petitioner. This shall be done subject to submissibn of t>roductJ.on certificate '': 3ugh it is submitted by Sbri Mistuca that i.n respect of some other persons such certif^Lcate is not Insisted upon, If ! it is how the thing is dope, then the petitioner must canply with the reqiu.rement of s^lbmission o£ production certificate from the Competent Authori£x_«- ;.RPRJ—FS/311—1/2001 —58,000. 'S^T '='ff2fra~4, WSfWW, 'wriwy i^^es s^fris^ sn^i^ I ft;ira'3i^T gT»iwWta I ant^ ?*^|SR ^Hfti' I<et it be done within rertain quantity of rice is no barn supplying sample tietitioner, if requested, in ibould also be done in oiE accordfence The petitlon is di.spo Certified copy as per 'iScl^-l TiTWff •? fS<3t 'i.'f ^Tsri^wsn^i ten <3ays frantoday. I£ r^jected, in my view, tbere rejected rice to the jthis regard* However, guch tritb procedure laid ^ed of rules Sd/- ChiefJustice