IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.^P.Np.54°S / 2005 PETITIONER ./^ B^/ ^w/ "w /w 7 ' Jai Jalaram Prathmik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar, a Registered Society. under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having its Registration No. 17/1961 through its President, Azimuddin S/o Sheikh Rahimuddin, Aged about 50 years; R/o Near Raman Mandir, Having Fair Price Shop at Ward No.12/1, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 3). State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Food Branch Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) The Food Controller, Raipur District-Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ sn^Tgir R-fi+sn^r gii:ira?gfB(i' ?sg' ^ww^, 9Ti1tf'is, Riditiy *<IHMI S.nilch^..^^.^^.p.^^ 200 <?r sn^TWtiTWHfea' 8-8-20<% Shri P. Ciiwakar, Ser Advoca'te for The petitioners. Shri Sandeep Di State/respondents. Since the Writ P^ 3615/2005, 3616/2005, 3638/2005, 3637/2005, 3626/20)5, 3625/2005, ajspension of fair' price petitioners.only one montl^ ) account of violation of System (Control) Order, the agreement entered i^it Licencing Authority, ther^l this common order. I have heard Shri ff. the petitioners. Learned Senior Counls in one day it is said that i^ie Wqtef^T Wl?rf ff te^ ^SfCTT ^3l)^TT3n^T |jor Advocnte with Skri K. 5. Pawar, (bey, 6ovt. Advocate for the ^titions N0.3608/200S, 3614/2005, ^618/2005, 3619/2005, 3621/2005, ^636/2005, 3635/2005, 3627/2005. ^623/2005 wid 3622/2CN35 relat®to shops, which were aiiotted to the back.vide order da1-ed 21-7-2005.en some clajses of Pubtic Distribution 3004 and also violation of conditiorw of iijito between the petitioners and ths ••^fore, they are being disposed of by Diwakar, learrKd Senior Coinsei for el for the petitioners submitted that spection of 17 shope was carried out, ;,i.fiHfnS ;t}.<rf-ip;>aRK STI^TqiT f^ITEpSH^T aCTWdf?(f 3^? •^II^K'I^, ®T{IU'IS,istCIK-iy *11*<MI sh*1|ch sn^TCTtiTWBfer _Q "^tr ony Ouring inapection, the Insp^i re9isters were not found display notice board was Order, 2004 were not bein^ the agreement was noticed|. always fine is imposed whe|i action has been taken. It so mony shops in one day opening of the shops, arbitraryondtoo harsh to stayed. Ctause-18 of the saidl though the word 'auspension| the said order; the ionguag^ as auch in my considered| oppealable. Therefore,the dot K'dS State Govemment. as it ~'> Fobd Annexure-P/3 that the orcier as per the orders ofl +i'!iI'ci41.ftiiMdTir'tefl'; ^T3Tl^T3TI^T jcting Authority noticed that certain |n th®shops as wel! as fair price displayed and other clauses of complied with, and also violation of Normally for such minor vioiation 'he|reas, in the present cases, drastic not physieally possible to inspect it was done within one month from th^refore, action of respondents is petitioners. Therefore, order be 1lhe order- provides for an appeai. Even has been used. But, from perusal of shows that it is almost canceitation, opinion, the order in questien is petitio|ners should fite an appeal before the is evident from impugned order Controller has passed the said the Collector within a p«riodof 7 ^ XI-HC-22 an^r^T R-fleh sn^r aiqra;Hf?(r Barvel 3^ •<IMI<'I<I, »Tfl-y'i6, fci<vi!<-iy *ll*<rtTsh*l|ch^•^•]-3-6^p^ 200 doys from today and the <(ii<<F<vi<fl-< t<iMctTfffe<^<Rt(^i< ^arl^Tsn^r State ©overnmentshould decide the appeal within a perioct of ). month from th«date of recaipt of the appeal in accordance ^/ith law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioneps.| In the meantime, 1|itl the appeai is decided, shops in question should not be attofted to any other party. With the ctirection aforesaid, the above writ petitions stand disposed of. In view of this ord|er, all the pending apptications also stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge