IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.( C) No... ..^.. ;........... .../2011 PETITIONER: Laxman Das Bajaj S/o Shri Rawaldas Bajaj, Aged about 49 Years, C/o Nanak Pustak Bhandar, Hatri Bazar, Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^^ ff^ ^,n^'.^^••^ ' II'*'K ^ "''^^•^y ^•\^'--" ..5:ys^ .T\«^"^'';" ,,?> .;?>•' 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through fhe Secretary, Department of Food, Consumer Protection and Civil SuppUes, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) <^iindustan Peta-oleum Corporation Lnnited Through Managing Director, Registered office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra Collector-Food Office of Collector and Food Controller, Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.) '4. Gayatri Gas Agency Authorized Dealer of Hmdustan Peta-oleum Corporation Limited Through proprietor Gayatri Soni, t|ri- Near Government College, Khob Road, Bhatapara Dista-ict Raipur (C.G.) 5. Dwarika Soni S/o not known to the petitioner, R/o C/o Gayatri Gas Agency, Near Govemment College, Kholwa Road, Bhatapara District Raipur (C.G.) FETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 1 ,:^^v !fs^^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0,5186 OF 201'1 PETITIONER Laxman Das Bajaj Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 12th day of September, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.4 to issue LPG Gas connection in favour of the petitioner, further seeks a direction to the respondent No.1 to investigate the complaint dated 30-11-2010 made by the petitioner and to take appropriate action against the respondent No.4 and also direct the respondent No.2 to immediately initiate disciplinary action against the respondent No.4. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 is the dealer of LPG connection in the town of Bhatapara. The petitioner applied for new LPG connection in the year 1999. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 committed malpractices and sold the connection in the name of the petitioner to some other person. Thus, the petitioner challenges the illegalities committed by the respondent No.4 by filing applications from time to time before the respondent authorities, but till date no action has been taken. Thus, this petition. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner, the respondent Hindustan Petroleum 'Corporation Limited (for short "the respondent Corporation") ll'tl- 6. ^ initiated the enquiry. In the letter dated 27-12-2010 (Annexure - P/11 page 41) it has been clearly mentioned that in spite of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to collect the new gas connection from the respondent No.4, he has not taken any action. Even three members of the respondent Corporation went to the house of the petitioner and advised him to obtain the new gas connection, at that time also the petitioner informed them that he will collect the new connection later on. In the said letter, the Corporation has specifically mentioned that they are making all efforts to improve the operation of the agency of respondent No.4 and another agency is proposed at Bhatapara so that customer service can be improved and LPG can be supplied hassle free to all customers of Bhatapara area. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner is not at all interested to collect the new gas connection and he wants to continue to make complaints against the respondent No.4 without any rhyme or reason. Thus, the petitioner may approach the respondent authorities for getting new connection, as prayed in relief clause No. ii, as is evident from the offer dated 27-12-2010 made by the respondent Corporation to grant him new gas connection, which he had declined in the past, if so advised. As an upshot, the writ petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Gowri Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 'rH'1i-^—;,:.|^s:¥F'^|ji^^:^ ^J^^^^^