2% M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition {Cl No. 6358 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1 . i,’( M/s Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd., Through Assistant Manager Lega1~ VF Registered Office at Dare House, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai, Branch Office: M/s Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited, Third Floor, Chowla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G,) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Building, Ministry, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Collector, District Mahasamund, C.G. Inspector, Station HouSe Officer, City Kotwali, District Mahasamund, C.G. Smt. Rashmi Bagga, W/o Shri Atul Bagga, R/o Gurudwarapara, Near Agrawal Petrol Pump, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Atul Bagga, S/o Shri Harbansh Lal Bagga, R/o Gurudwarapara, Near Agrawal Petrol Pump, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Writ Petition under Article 226 at 227 er the Constitution or India! Apgearanc’e: Mr. Alok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 3 on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (19.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR' SINHA, J, Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Mr. Alok Dewangan,‘ learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has moved two applications before respondent No.2 for releasing the trucks No. C.G.-O4-JA/8255 85 C.G.—O4-CW/8555‘on suprudnama during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings under the provisions of Section 6—B of the Essential CommoditiesAct. He submits that these two trucks ’2/ ( Writ Petition (C) No. 6358 of 2009 were seized by Mahasamund police on 15.12.2008 in connection with offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. He also submits that though the applications have been moved on 16.2.2009 but respondent No.2 has not disposed of the same till date, therefore, a direction may be issued for the early disposal of . the said applications filed by the petitioner for releasing the vehicles on suprudnama during the ,pendency of the confiscation proceedings. Smt. Smita Ghai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 3 submits that if the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the said applications at the earliest, she has no objection. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 that if the applications filed by the petitioner for receiving the vehicles on suprudnama on 16.2.2009 have not been disposed of so far, they shall be disposed of at the earliest keeping in mind that the seized vehicles are machinery and a long stay in stationary condition may affect their conditions. With the above observations/directions, writ petition stands finally disposed of. L, Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge