PETITfdNER RESPONDENTS X E ~ 1 £ 1 x W *EIE §§§ §E§$§ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF C iG AT BILASPUR , W P 1CIN0.gait of2010 (y B.M.C. Colliery Karmachari, Prathmik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar, Mar1yadit, through the Secretary, Vijay Narayan Pathak S/o Late hr1 Rvgnbachan Pathak aged aboutlié years R/o Welfare Colony Khongaparu, Tahs1l Manendragarh District: Korea (C G) l z x l l Through the :Secretary, Ministry o£ Food Ciyil Supplies and i Protection Consumers Department, 4 D K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (C G ) ~ The Food Controller, Department of Food C1v11 Supplies and The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, District—Korea (C.G.) :l. K 2 3; 4. 5. \ \\ f State of Chhaétisgmh K The Food Officer, Korea, District- Korea (C.G.) 5’” l I WRIT} PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 5 I x i x 1 i Consumer Protection, Raipur (C.G.) The »Collector, Korea, District- Korea (C.G.) HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR v K . t WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB Hon ble Mr Satlsh K Agmhotri J) Present :1 Shn Prateek Sharma Advocate for the petitioner A v Shrl Arun Sac, Government Advocate for the state " ORDEMOMQ (Passed qn thisza day orJuIy,2o11) Léarned counse! appearing for the petitianiepsubmb that the impugned / communication dated 16.08.2010 (AnnexUre P-1) from the Collector, Koriya to Sub Divisional Offlcer (R), Manenéragarh, ‘(for ehort “the 300’), wherebytthe SDO hes beenhdi'rected to cancel the allotment of>fair price shop‘of the petitioner, is contrary to the statutory provisions of the I Chhattisgarh Public Distributton System Control Order, 2004 (forshort “the ‘ Order, 2004”}. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the communication i dated 16.08201 O, does not provide for straight canceliation of the shop, , without following thevproyisione of lawtas enshrined in Clause 16 of the order; 2004. Thus, thishordyer cannot "be‘ir‘npugned at this stage. As a i matter of fao‘tt no other person has been appointed and no order to the) petitioner not to continue wrth the fair pnce shop has been passed He further submits that the enqulry rs In progress and the finat orders shall be, l passed only after enquiry as contemplated’undar provrsrons of Clause 16; of the Order 2004 rs complied Admittedly there Is no communication to the petitioner or no copy of thus communication has been endorsed to the petitioner. How the petitioner Is ; r in possession of intemai communication between the Collector and the; \ , WRIT ‘PETITION (C) No. 201 o » Petitioner; I a ‘B.M‘C. Come _ Karmachari ‘ Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others 2 O, raises a quesion mark when admittedty no order has been passed nd the petitioner has not beendirected to cilose the fair price shop. r T e t y rocess is on and nnai order Is yet to be passed Further the practice o p f r approaching prematureiy and misleading th Court should be avoided r to cost e as s Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Juge he petition Is premature as no Impugned order has been passed to cies i he fair price shop, as according to learn ‘d state counsel the enqunr s such the wnt etition is dismissed No o A p r l ‘ SD t 5 d