•:^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {0 N0. ^z^ OF 2011 PETITIONER: / M/s Rani Sati Agro Industries, Through Its Proprietor Karmendra Sharma aged about 41 years, Changora Bhata, Kushalpur Chowk, Ring road No.l, Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS ^ ^s^'" v^'" w^'.^ ^•^ ^;;;^ ^\ "^^ ^A^ .^•'"^ .a' 9'" \'4 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Urban Administration 85 Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2) Municipal Corporation of Raipur, Through Its Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) 3) Zone Commissioner, Zone No.5, Municipal Corporation Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner begs to submit as under:- ^- . A 'y^-) H1GH COU??T OF CHHATTI80ARH AT BIIASPUR WRIT PETITION (C} No. 3856 of2011 PETITIONER RE.SPO^DENTS M./s, R-a.ni Sat.i Agro Indiistries^ VRR8IJS State ofChliattisgarh &. Ot.hers. WRIT PE'miON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CO'NSTITLrnON OF INDIA SB: "Hon'We SIiri Satlsii K. Agniliotrt, J. Present: Shri S.S.Rajput, Advocate tbr^e petitioner^ Atwi Sao, GoveiTmi-ent Advocate for the State/respoiidetit No. 1. Shi'i H.B.AGrawaI, Senior Advoca.te with Sbri Pa.iskaj Agra.wal^ Advocate fbr the res-poridesit No«2 aiid 3. O R D E R (Passed on 02nd day ofNovember, 201 1) 1. Challenge in liiis petition m to the order 10.03.2011 (Aiinexiire P/5) issued bv the resnondent No. 3 whereby the petiticmer has been . directed f.o close down his indii^trv a.nd infbrm the respondent No. 3 • withm a period oftiiree days. 2. Lea-med coansel a-pp_ea.rmg for liie petitioner sybmits that by aii a.greemesif. betweeii the petmoner and one Ma.hendra. Kumar Sha.rma, on 01.03.2011 (Annexiire P/l), the mdiistry m dispirt.e was tra.nsferred to 'the petitioner, The permission to mn the said indiistry was granted by the Distriet. Tra.de and Industry Centre, Raipir on 03.04.2008 (Amiexiire P./2) which wa.s renewed subsequently on 15.03.2011 for two yea.rs. In the mea.ntime, withQirt afFordmg a.n opport.imity of hearmg, the Zonal Commissioner Mumcipal Corporation, Raipur deeided ex-parte fhat the mdiistry i.e, Ram Sati A^o iiidiistries, was bemg nm imaiithorisedly^ without. afrbrding an opp<Myiiity ofhearing to fhe petitioner to establish his 'that fh^ inAi^r^ was bem^ nm in ® accordance with law and with proper sanction. Thiis, 'the imniigned order dated 10.03.2011 closmgtiie mdii^try ofihe petitioner is iilega-L imconstitiitional and deserves to be qiia.shed. 3. On the .other ha-nd, Sbri H.B.Agrawal, lea-nied semcc eo'imsel appearing with Shri Pa.nJ?Laj /jigrawal leamed counsel for the respondent Nc?- 2 aiid 3 fairly siibriiit that. it. appea.rs that 110 not.ice was issiied t.o the pet.itioner before passiiig liie impii.giied order. Thiis, the .respoHdent-Corporation may be granted liberty to issii@ a fresh no'tice to 'the petTtioner affbrdillg him an opportimity to pirt fbrward his case and 'fee respondent-Corporatioji may pass order •tjiereafter 011 consideriiig t.he response ofthe petitioiier, iii accorda-HQe with la.w a.nd on rts own merrts. 4, Iii view of the above submissioii ma.de by leamed coimsel a-ppearmg forthe re.spOAident-Corpora.tioii, the impiigiied order dat.ed 101)3/2011 (Amiexiire P/5) is qiia-shed-. However liberty is resen/ed t.o fhe respondeiit-Corporation to proceed in a.ccorda.nce with iaw, as aforest.a.t.ed, on its own merits, a.ffbrdmg proper oppommity of hearingto ttie petitioner^ ifso advised. 5. Aecordmgly, the writ petitioii m allowed to the a-'bove ext.ent... No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arnit