c^ ^-v r^ .^"'" IN THE HICrH COURT QF GHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRFT PETmON (Q N0. ^^^) OF 2010 Pl PETTHONER : ^.\--^ Smt.Maya Mishra, W/Q Shri Prabhu Nath Mishra, aged about 48 yearsi, R/0 Street N6. ^^•^''^^ 18»s^eelNagar,BhUai, ^^'^^^ DistrictDurg <C-G-> 'r^B<-:r^<".___' , VERSUS RESPONDENTS y l.The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Exeise ©epartment,D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2.The State of Chhattisgarb, throughi the Aver Saehrv, Coinmercial Tax (Excise), department, D.K.S. Bhavan^Raipur (CG). 3. The Coininissioner, Excise, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 4. The Collector, Durg, DistrictDurg(CG). ,> 5. The Assistant Conunissioner, Exci^e, Durg, District Durg (CG). WMTPETn^ONUIJNDERARTICI^ES 2260F^GB CONSTIT(nTON OFINDIA. ^tSI gfi :i'i'^??^S^%;;-iM^a'^2''^' Petitiorier fflGH<S©URTI€?FCTii "IS^^H^SSL^ ^RITPEtlTIONfCYiSI0.2e010F^1& M Smt^MayaMjshra Versus R^bondents^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TO VVR{TPETITIONUNDsERARTjGLE226C3FTMECONST|TUTIQNOFiNDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. ^atish K. AgnjhOtn, J.) Present:-^hriAwadhT~riDathi:Advocatefortlie.DetitJoner. ShnIVi.P.S.Bhatia,Dy.Govt.AcivocatefortheSt respondents.^1'.^..'..',.,.'i,.,-.,,f^^ :/ORDER^RAL^:-'.''tl';:'-.';-- (Passedon11thdayofNovember,2010) f1. ChaHenge in this petition is to the brder ^ated 4j2.201 (), passed^^ b^ the State of ChMattisgarh, ^omrnercial^^^^T^ whereunder the application of^he petltionter^^^ Hotei Rapti, Khursipar, Bhilai, Distrjcf Durg, was^^^r^ groundthattheFeisr^clearopinionofthee 2. Leamed courreei appearing forthe petitjonersubOT^ cannot be ciosed on account ofthe factthatthe Coliectortiad not given clear opinion as per the requiFemCT The AdditiQnal Secretaryx)ught to have directed fhe^^^^O^ give definite opinion orilhe issue ratherclosing ^ order Impygn^ is unjust, improper and deserves fe ShriTripathi^ furthersubmitsthatafterapplicattQn^^^ 17 F.I^SIJcehseshavebeengrantedtodiffereNpersonsinB^ •DJstrictDyrg.'l'.!- .,;1:::1;'..L^^ •,:.'l.'.':-.':i,-;.l:^7'''^ 3. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, tearried %. Govt.^ ^ referrihg to the affidavit flled by State submits was rejected not on account ithafthe aRipliG^tJon but ai^l&nthefacf ^sMi. thattheapplicationofthepetitjonerdated 17.5.2006 fgr^grantof F.L.-3 license was incomplete, a$ it did not submit Tood and lodgihg license of MuniciDal Gorporation, Bhilai, alongwit^the application. IhavegonethroughtheopiniondftheCollectordated 11.9.2009 ! (Annexure.P-7). -;; •':' ••. •^ : ;,, 1' •/1: :1 ^•.1'1., J '. .1;:.. '^^ : ^ ^ , '.•„:. Be that as it may, jt appears that the respondent authoritjes have closed the case subsequentjy by pointing out a new defect in the application though, the imDugned order d^ed 4.2.201 O does not djsclose any other reasons except that the opinion onhe Collecfor wasvague. In view of the foregoing, it appears that fhere is no application of mind, the impugned order is quashed. The Addjtiona! •SeGretary is directed to iookintothe appiicatjon andthe opinion ofthe Goilectpr afresh, if necessary, a fresh opinion may be called from the Gollector, Dyrg, and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law., ,: •1 • •" ....'•',•,.... .'1;.-- ,::. -,1 .• : ..:. .. . 1, ..1 1. •••'' Accordingly, the writ petition is ctisposed of. No order asto costs. iasfc Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri ludge