tt ^SliisSuS^ -•" C^f OT> ^_ IN THE^HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATmLASPUR WRIPP^nTION (Cl. No. 2-^3> 12,007 PETITIONER : Mys. Indian Home Products through its Proprietor Bhagwandas Uchania, S/^* Late Ramesh Chand Uchania, aged about 36 years, R/o. Palace aiVCD-COPYRoad, Ambikapur, District Surguja ^f 3 ^ (C.G.). GLERK to A. G.8ILA&TIW RESPONDENTS ./ \o/W y-^-"' .- J^^w ^?^ /^y / ' oay f// 0- •S' 4' .y •&' VERSUS :l),State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Trade 85 Industaries Department, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raip.iir (C.G.) :2J-- General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). :3)^ S.D.M., Ambikapiu-, Distodct Surguja (C.G.). :4) Deputy Director, Industries, /""'Directorate Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) :5) Conunissioner, Industries, Directorate Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) WmT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA s, H2^ COURT OFQ1HATTIS6ARH AT BILASPW Writ PeWhm (O No. 253 af 2007 Petitioner <A/s. Indifln Home Products Versus fteqiondents State of Chhattisgcrii and o'thers Singte Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Smt. Hamicte Siddique, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Oeputy ©overnmentAdvocate for -the State/reqiondents. ORDEft (Passed on 19m bay of February, 2(X)7) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihatri, J. y' L This petition is directed against the order duted 19.7.2006 of (Annexure P-1) passed by the re^iondent No.2-6enenil Atonoger, District Trade and Industries Centre, Ambikapur, &istrict-&ir9uja. 2. Leamed counsel for -the petitioner submits that •the petitioner was allotted the disputed land for 99 years' lease ond an cgreemait was entered into for the above purpose on 23.12.1988 (Annexure P-2), however by the order impugned, herein, the altotment of lease in fwour of the petitioner has been concelled without affording cny opportunity of hearing. t-te further submits -thort as per Clouse 33 o^ the agreement, he had preferred a representation on 17.8.2001 (Annexure P-9) before •the Commissioner, Industries, Oirectoro-t Chhattisgarh, Rnipur well within 30 days from the date of impugned order. The same has not been considered and responclents are likely to dispossess tiie petitioner from the allotted premises. He further submits that instant petition may be disposed of with a direction to the concemed oul+iorities to diqsose of the representation of (Annexure P-9) in nccordance with •the agreement of (Annexure P-2) cnd titt deciswn of the representation, the petitioner should not be diqiossessedin pursuance of order dated 19.7.2006 (Annexure P-l) which is not opposed by the counsel for the State. v 3. In view of the submission made by the counsel for 1+ie part'ies, instant petition is disposed of writh a direction to the respondents that they diall consider the representation of (Annexure P-9) on its own merit after affording an opportunity of hearin9 to the petitioner. It is further directed that titt appropriate order is *-. passed on -fhe representation of (Annexure P-9), the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the allotted premises. 4. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agoihotri Judge SiAhash