IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAmSGARH AT ^ (-/j ^ilLASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. "11^ 2001 PetlUoner ^' Versus Respondents 3. Ws Shyam Rtoe & Per BoBtng Untt No.1 through Stiri Jagdsh Rasad Agrawal Sto Artwlal A^awstf aged about 58 yeara, Holcter of Pcwer of /sttcmey on bdialf of propri^or. Artt Kumar faffswsi . Sto Radhesl^yam Agrawal, P.O.Neora, Ost: Raipir (C.G.} i^^-^rVf^. f R , T~u". ^.. "'••'" .. . ^.h.l-' "' ^-l^p^- • • ishi Upa] Mandi Sairiti Neora Dist : l%tfpur through tts Secretary Krlshl tJ|3aj Mandl Samiti, Neora, Ost : Raipur— (C.G.) Comrrissioner-cum-Manasing arector, Mand, Chhsdtisgarh Rapoishi \^nan Board, Raipur, Qst: REBpur-(C.G.) Shri Mahendra Sngh Savanni, Sea-etary KrisM Upai Mandl Samitl Neora, Neora, Dist : Raipur-(C.G.) Dy.arector (C.G.) Rajya KrisN Vlparan Board, fetfpu- DiMsion, Roni KrisM U^Ey IVbnd, Raipur- (C.G.) S ,Y !>-:' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ^ef- 3ITS?,y/ 1 v^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 495 of 2001 PETITIONER : M/s Shyam Rice & Per Boiling Unit No. 1 ^VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Neora & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri B.P. Sharma with Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate for the respondent No.l & 3. ORDER (ORAL^ (Passed on 13a' day of August, 2010) 1. Heard leamed counsel for fhe parties. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue with regard to grant of licease is pending consideration in the petition. By impugned order dated 14/01/2001, fhe license of the petitioner for wholesale and processing of rice, was cancelled. This Court suspended the operation of resolution dated 13/01/2001 and order dated 14/01/2001, on 12/04/2001. In the meantime, despite suspension ofthe order, no action has been taken by the respondents to grant benefit to the petitioner. 3. Be that as it may, at this stage, as leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to make a ftesh application for grant of license in accordance with law on merits and, as such, the order passed earlier dated 14/01/2001 may not be given effect to having regard to pendency ofthe matter for the last nme years. The petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh application to the respondent No. 1 and 2 with a direction to the authorities to consider the application ofthe petitioner, on m'erit. • r <rc' ^'s 4. Shri Shanna, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at fhis stage the petitioner does not want to press the matter on merits. 5. Shri Marhas, leamed coimsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 3 submits that there was stand still after grant of interim relief. The respondents have no objection, if an application is made for grant of license and respondent No.l shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and on its own merits, without giving effect to the resolution dated 13/01/2001 andtheorderdated 14/01/2001. 6. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing remains in this petition for adjudication at this stage. 7. It is ordered accordingly. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun