HEGH CQURT OF JUBECATURE CHHATTESGARH : BQLASPUR DIV!SION BENCH CSRéN : HéwELE $E-3FIE .. DATTU, 6‘2 & HON’BLE SHRI V.K. $HRNASTAVA, J. WRET PETE‘HON NO. 16$? 0F" 29G3 Pfesem :- Shri VL‘. Otta§war, ccunsei fcr the petitianers.i Séaré Vinay Har§t, Dy. Advocate Genemi far ihe? Siate. EETETEQNER$ *é. Dakjit Singh} $IG Pratag Singh, aged 52 yeam, 0céwai‘mn Business, R/o Jodhapuy, Dhamtari. 2. Ram Kumal' Eharma, sic Kartaram Sharma, aged 65 yeara Ric) infront of Patida:‘ Bhavan, GE. Road, Ragnaridgaan. 3. Sunil Agrawak Slo Sm KK. Agrawai, Occupation Business, aged 36 years, Rio ‘E7i‘i3, Nehru Nagar, Housing Baard, Bhuai, Dismct Burg. Versus RE$PQNQEN¥S 1 . State of Chhamsgarh, through the Secretary. Departmen‘~t m ExcEse, Mantraiaya, DKS. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Ccmmissiener (Excise), $kate of Chha‘ztisgarh, Raépur. ' 3. Cokiectcr (Excise), Dhamtafé (CG). 4. District Exc§se Officer, Dhamtari. 5. Manoi ’ Kumar, Pingua, Coiiector, Dhamtari. 6‘ Ramdev Dhivar. Sh: Mohanial Dhivar,‘ aged 3O years, Rio BaniyaPara, Dhamtari (C.G.). ‘4‘ GRAB. QRQER (Passed en 26"; March, 200?) The following orai order of the Court was passed by M. Dam, CJ. A license was issued to one Mukesh Kumar Gupta for vending iiqucr in group No.4, Dhamtan’, for the excrse year 2033-04. The saéd iicense is canceiieci by the Coiiec’éor by his order dated 9-5-2003. it is the aiiegatien of the petitieners in the writ petirion, the: the Coiiestor withoui caiiing fresh render for rhe remaining neriod of that excise year, has aiiotted the shop to respondent No.6. Therefore, rhe petitioners are before this Court for the foiiowing reiiefs. They are : i) To quash the order datee‘ 'iO—S-2OS3 paseed by the Coliecior in favour of resoono‘ent No.5. ii} To direc‘z the State Government to ioitiate apprepr§e€e proceedings againsi rhe Coiieotor (respondenr No.5) for causing revenue ioss to the State by grenttng ticense to respondent No.6. even though the petitioners were wiiting to pay an amount higher thao the emourxt offered by respondent N05. 2) tn so far as the first prayer is concerned, because of efiiux of time, the same has become intructuous; therefore, the first prayer cannot be granted at this stage and accordingiy it is rejected. 3:: in so tar as the second prayer is concerned, after canceitation of the iicence granted to one Mukesh Komar Gupta, the Cottector has ¥ granted the iicence to the '3‘“ respondent for the remaining period of excise year 2003-2004. tf for any reason the petitioners are aggrieved by the license so granted to respondent No.8 atter canceiiing the license granted to Mokesh Kumar Gupta, they can [an i r PM questian only tha€ aspect of the matter ’m an apprepriate proceedmgs. The second prayer in the writ petEtien is in the nature of public interest IEtigetion. The pet§tioners whe are before this Court for redressal of theié' personal grievances, cannot try te expose the so ca§!ed !oee caueed to the publto exchequer. Thetet‘ore, in our cp§raion, the second ptayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be grantee and accordingly it is rejected. However, iiberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum for appropriate relief in so .l i, i \x far as second prayer is concerned, it they so ciesire, rdered acoorciingiy. _J7’//;=eo Sd/- hrivastava Sd/- Judge x Chief Justice “i ll ,