HIGH €$URT CF CHHEE'T!$G§RH : E!LAS?HR WRET PETlTiQN NO; 138§ QF 2801 PETETmNER Manish & A$sociates, Thmugh the Proprietor Manish Agrawai, Ward No.7, Bagbahra, village Mouiimuda, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Versus RESP$NDENT$ 1. Krishi Upaj Mandi 8amiii through Secretary, Krishi Upa} Mandi, Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Chharti$garh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Boarci, Purana Ganj; Mandi, Raipur, Chhatiisgarh. ’3 Krishi Upaj’rv‘iandi $amiii, Jashpurnagar, thrcugh it$ Sesretary. (Writ petirian unrier Article 2261227 of rhé Constituticn of India) Singie Bemh : Hori’ble $hri Sarigh K. Agnihoiri; J. Present :— M3. Sunita Jain, counsei for the petiticner. 3hri ,Dheeraj Wankhade, counsei for the respondents. ORAL ORDER ~ (Passed on this 30‘“ day of September, 2009) Learned counsei appearing for the respondents submits that on verification it is found that the petitioner has been charged twice on account of Mandi fees. He further submits that whatever excess amount hae been taken trom the petitioner that shaii he returned to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9%, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order‘ 2) in View of categorioai statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondente, according to learned counsel for the petitioner nothing survivee in this petition, 3) Accordingiy, the writ petition stands diaposed of. 4) Consequently, pending applicatione, if arty, etand disposed of, J"? L_// ¥ r} i )iiS)d7- . - . ‘ Satish K. Agmhotri Judge \ ,