"CFOoooi'iwiy"'"" j ' ^-^- IN THE HIGHCQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.V W.P......5^........./2001 M JI'T\ww lli^ ^ ^ •^o? PETITIONER_: .s? RESPONDENTS M/s. Harbansh Singh & Sons, Through Its Partner Gurmeet Singh Bhatia, S/o Late Sardar Harbansh Singh Bhatia, Aged 45 years, Resident of Dayalbandh, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Excise & Commercial Tax, Department ofExcise, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Commissioner,Excise & Commercial Tax, Department of Excise (Separate Revenue), D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Raigarh, (Auctioning Authority) Raigarh (C.G.) PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSURANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS.. CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE. -r? \ .^ QC^ f9<^ T XI-HC-22 •^TRiT. B^T f^iN'oTli^ ^^NT'Hf^ T^ •^FTR;F?, •3^TT%, t^rray Vs/-.?. i\;t»cfoS/A<ro( TjT^^T^^t^"""""'"""""""""""""1'""^ 20° /^^^' •i^-^y ^ -31^^WsWTfeT -06-@8^ee&- Shri Ablushek Sinha, coi^nsel Dr. N.K.Shukla, leame^ Siagh, Govt. Adv. for the State. Heard. It is stated by the leamedl mterveuer- Krishua Chaadral D. Mishra, Advocate. It appear| Lacs aad the intervener had d< ^N^f^ Tri?^Tf ^ fsT^' 7f^:^ ^3:TF?R31T^T for fhe petitioner. Addl, Adv, General witli Shri Ranbii' counsel for the petitioner fhat ftie prayer claioied iii fhis writ petition ha^ becoiae iafructuous. However, the only question survives is the que^tion of the GoveiTLoient refizndmg the amount which had been depqsited by flie petitioner as also by tlie Raut, who is represented by Shri ^ that the petitioner had deposited Rs.42 Rs,50 Lac for auction of liquor r^7"7 shops of Group No. 1 Barapara ijn. District Raigarh. Admittedly, their bids liave not been accepted. It is s1 fhat since bids liave not been a<t Accordiagly in. view of thl Advocate General, fhe petition ^ted by the Additional Advocate General ^cepted State wiU refiind the amount. At this stage Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Adv. stated fhat his cUent- Anil Pandey had also deposited Rs.3(^ Lac, which also needs to be refunded. ^ stateiaent ixiade by leamed Additional 1s disposed of by directmg fhe State to refund the amount to the petiljioner, iatervener- Krishna Chs-ad Razit and Anil Paiidey withia a perio^ of fhree weeks from today. It may be meutioned that Shri Rajeev Shri|vastava, counsel for the mtereener" Aiiil Paiidey, has stated and undert^kes that the petitioner would wifhdraw liis writ petition by filiag a prope^ bgfore ftiis Court. Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge ^4 X4 i^