':§ 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH _ 2 i : é PETETIONER /’ 4. Manendragarh, — V The §ecret§ry, lKur. Rubina, D/o gLate Shri Basarath, agedéabout 23 years, R/o Ward: No. 10, Moharpara Maneéndragarh, ‘Tahsil ‘ Manéndragarh, Distt. Korea ‘s '(C.G.) ' Protection Department, Bhawah, Raipur, v The ' Food Department and Protection Raipur (C.G.) - Supplies x. ‘ y _ V V . I: ‘ 3. \The District Collector, Korea ' . Distt. Korea (C.G.) The Food Offlcer, Korea V ‘ Distt. Korea (C.G.) ,V/ s, Manendragarhv‘d '. (Revenue) Distt. Korea (C.G.) Disttj: r Controller, of Food Civili consumers ' VERSUS I : 1. t“; Statewgfz‘Chhattisgarh " i, R'u .wpu C.G. ) The Sub Divisiohal Officeri‘ BILASPUR Z w.P.(C) No.5 Z3 /2010'(s.13.) / . Mahila Bachat Fircloos L Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Ministry of y Food Civil. Consumer Supplies and iwRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH DT i ' E ‘ CONSTITUTION bF 1NA J i J @ o amt Bchat Sa—Saata -§ Petitioner; ,, , , ,0 V, . H Flrdos Ma a whav Vetsus . V ' tt of hhasarh & Others ‘ o o one ern dvce tate. I I DERQRAL) ’ his: 28 dayofJuly 2011) 'I r 1 f ‘ :Leard counsel appearing for the petitroer submrts tht th Impuged ne n a e n m a fr h on i Kenya to Sub Dlvrsmnal Offcer (R), Manendragah ( st “th SDO? wherby the O hs een dird to cncel atoment farr pric : *comumcatron dted 1608 2010 (Annexure P-1) om te Ceaor r for hor e e SD a b ecte a the lt of e shop of the petmoner, rs contrary to the statutory provrsrons of the ‘Chhattisgarh Public Dustnbutron System Control Order 2004 (for short “the Order 20043 2.“ Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the oommumcatron dated §1 6.08.2010, does not sprovrde for straight cancellation of theshop, f without following the provisions of law as enshrined in Clause .16 of the ‘ order 2004 Thus, thrs order cannot be rmpugned at thrs stage As a ‘ matter of fact no other person has been appomted and no order to the petitioner not to continue wrththe fair price shop has ‘been‘passed. He ‘ fur-their submits that the enquiry is in progress and thefrnal orders shat! be passed only after enquiry as contemplated under provisions of Ciause 16 of the Order 2004 rs compiied ,3, Admittedly, there rs no communication to the petltroner or no copy of thrs communication has been endorsed to the petitioner How the pehtroner is in ossessron of internal communication between the Collector and the: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT‘ BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN C NO 5003 OF 2010 ‘ / Resggndents r ~ « Sae Cjig WRuT PETmoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE cONsnTUTiON OF :NmA f (s - Hn’ble Mr Sansh K Agm+otn J) “ ' . ‘ Shn Rahul Ml$hra, Advcate for the petmr Pteéé'n’t ‘ j Shn Arun Sao, Govnmet Aoat fur the $ - (Pa§sed ont p 2 :-g raises a qestion m w M and the petitioner has not been directed to dose the fair price shop {The petition is premature as no impugned order has been passed to ose the fair price shop, as according to lea ed State counset the enquiry ‘process is on and fnal order is yet to be assed Further, the practice of approaching prematurely and misleading e Court shoutd be avmded As such the writ petition is dismissed No order asto costs I Sd/— g Satish K. Agnihotri i 1 i i i i i Judge Ju _A SDO u ark hen admittedly no order has been passed Q d i I