WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226L227 OE THE CONSTITUTLON OF INDIA ' ' 23.07.2062 Shri Kishore Bhaduri, cou nsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, No.1. Shx‘i PraShant Mishra, cou nsel for respondent No.2. In temm of tha Court’s Registrar, Chhattisgarh Pharm; record which is perusal and retl imed to him. The gricvance of thc petit respondcnt No2 in not mnm peiitioner, since he has not bee1 respondent No.2, his license wa‘ three persons who had submitt he had submitted his applicatic The names of these persons are petiu'on. The faet‘that the licen: .e. of these persons was renewe win a day, is not disputed by respondent No.2. It is further submied hat tt t ‘ Dy.Advoca'te—Ge11eral for respondent. arder dt.22.7{2002 Shri K.L.Gopwar, toy Council is present alongwith the ioner is to the maction on the part f o wing his license. According to the 1 able to meet illegal demands made by s uot renewed though to his knowldge; e 3d applications for renewal muc aft h er n, were granted renewal within a da. y mentionerl in paragraph 5.7 of te writ h d thi [tile-W ,WW(W)- mmtw mm&wm §?W'an%§1 as the 1ystitioner did not submit‘ {he full renewal fee, his renewal application could not be. procqkssed. - However, therevis no body of the application nor is saying that when applications; K t$re filed, there should be som ’mdicate the date of regeipt of the‘ processed. E11 case a11y applicati‘ 3t should be so indicated 1'11 the ra‘ No.2 aod the applicant should b} 7t is hoped that steps Wm be takw in that regard. Be that as it me ‘he respondent No.2 that the’ lie :nse of the petitioner who had land granted in December 200“} ‘i 1*ect£ed the defects was renewed But he did not approach the aunhorities to collectvthe same. At ’~‘ Trhis t stage leained counsel for tlir‘e petitioner submitted that the post or it'could be delivered. or the petitioner would collect the qndorssment of this fact on tho “#:crc any mcoxd in respect of thi§ :1lt was stated that the order sheet‘ 1s ullfortunate. It goes without \ ’gicense would either by send by " hancled over to him and, in turn Eicense fmm b.1111 In the. above View of the m atter, nothing more. remains to be done in this writ petition, Wh‘ h stands disposed of with the A‘lbove directions. . l s fact On a query being raiseti, s or notings are not kept. This 54‘}. e omce record which should \ I applications and how they are on is lacking in any particular, ‘cord maintained by respondent 3 informed to rectify the diefect. en by the appropiiate authority ‘Ly, it was speciiically stated by C.c.as per rules. WWM Sdl- P.CoNaik Judge GRPRI—FSfZ/ ,— 3 72001._'l,o0/30a >;\ 7, ’ f