VHHVWssaiUHu T ^- ^'^- 0::'l ./: -/''^ ^•o IN THE.HXQH COTI8T.OP Jt®I@A3'^BE,A'FBI&ASPUR,(C»0«) W»P»NO»/S^2^F 2001 ,. BE^WEEN C^ia^tisg^ch Chaewal udyag sa&gh Raipar, Clahafetlsgarh) tteroagh secrete^ry Rajesh BteQOtada S/o ©^B^Bb00tada»aged abo^t 99- years»restdent of Kranti Nagar Btlaspar 1 ,\ ^ •:'/{^C *> r .*'" ^ ^" ^^ ••^w^ ('^,< .~^1 2» 3fi •4»5 5^ e^ PETITIGNER ^ KSQ . .,.. The State of ehlaattis^arbL.tfaroagh the secretary F©odand Clvtl sapplies and GcmsyBaer Protectioa ©epartBaent •Raipiar^ Tbe Seaior Regioaal Manager^Food C€»rp©£atioa of Indla^ Raipur ^ Begioaal Maaager» PCI *RaiptiU:»; Di.stej.cfc MajBia@^r» ffQQd Coyporatioja <?<, , liidi^ Bita^puu:» District Maaager, FCT OaEg* zoaal Maaager» FCI» Head Offioe Maiabai RESP^N®EBraS WRIT PE12TXON QNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THB CQNSTITtJTIQN ©B-INBIA ^Ti^T^T feiw STT^T $h^ic"h' efe7T -STli^'q^ ( '^^^) 'STI^T^n^R ^Tf <=bN(^l4lr1 H{^<:1? "^* 'f^st Tf^R?R ^ N^R^II^T k ^^.^•o^. ,^^4;^:.^>1^^::/:-J-.,..,..:. .,;i- ^/j^ ;.<9^/?^3'<^...^[ Q -^-^^^^r /'./7 ^^'^^ .^ ..:^^^'' .^^^[-HT^/^^t' -^1 Sd/- Chief Justice '^.^' '^ ^fl1'^ ....-, ^- .D.A.f.^^q-0 ^o-:li t-c.e ;^] ^^,^'^^ -^- - 3^y .^c^-& ^0,^' ^W^. , ^ ^^^-:-h,-: '^:..h' F--f- ^...••u ^.n^ ,^v <J^ ^ GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50,000. •..)•-?. =^-^":^- XI-HC-22 3n^['5BT fN^'^Tit^T 'iT^NT^Tr ^^i ';:?T£TR;P:[, "^fraTT^, t^rray Writ Petition No«1443/2001 "^ '^re^y' .^rt^r ^OT^R ^rfN i, learned counsel for petitioner^ IjnatructJLbns from Shri A^s» Gaharwar 27/9/2001 Shri Dhirendra Mishlca, Shri UsN. Deo< on for respondentno^1, Shri Rajeev Shr.JLvasjtava^ learned counsel fcc the respondent no»2» ShriB.p^ ©uptaolejarned counsel for responderibs nos.3 & 4 (FCI), O R th^t shjall Mijshra, petitic^ner On 16/8/2001 notice! was passed to ths effect the tmpugned order dated by the District Manager^ tended by Shri Dhirendra petitioner thafc the 2000 qutotals, o£boiled ricji Naila^ ht this stage^ Mr respondents nos^ 3 and 4 earlier deposited and some depositedc It is also that foc want of productioi^ of' r ice could not be depos ^N^pfrr 'WT^f ^ ft^t "^^OTaiT^T D E R was issued and an interim order until the next date of hearing 30J/7/2001 (Annexure-P/10) issued remain suspended^ It JLs con- ^ learned counsel for tbs had brought and unloaded ricje in the premises of F<»C^I at .P^ Gupta^ learned counsel for that some quantity was l^ore quantity was sitosequently furt|ier contended by Shri Gupta ti.ot^ eertifJLc^t^. certain quantity ;i|:ed^ However^ it 1s submXtted submits [Tf^ ^R^^ ••2 ^rr^^r f^Tr^ 3Tlt^T W^^ €T^i. 31T^T^^ (^f^^1?) W^? ^^TW ^f?"cf concerned Authority ought| according to Mr. Mishra, aboyt 15 days the trucks '^prf^R^T TIT^Tt ^ ftT:3t if^TCTT ^5Tl^3TT^T •• 2 Shrl Mishra that produeti^on Gertificate duly obtained from the Ccxnpetent Aathorjity has since been submittedo It is further submitted bjy Shri Mishra that in view of interim order passed by t|iis Courton 16/8/2001, the to haye verifkAand accepte^ ^ the supply of rice bythjswritpetitioner, Powever, jlear ned counael for t^he ^ere lydLng there and in the process loss was also sustained b^: t;he writ petitioner^ According to Mr. Gupta, learned coyjrasel for respondents nos • 3 and 4, upon verification, if ric^ supplied by the writ petitioner meets the minlum standard However, it iscontended jfchat if riee thus supplied is not good in terms of speaifioi regard^ then the Authoriti ittion/standard laid down in this { has no alternative^ but to reject, It appears that I need no|t give any finding as re^rds the j quality of rice» However goodfs, the Cc»npetent Auth and take final deGision o there is no reason to reject^ ^inee rice is.-also perishable ^rity should iinmediately^J^ri^ |£ acceptance or rejectJLon of the supply already xnade by th4 petitioner. This shall be done subject to submissibn of ^roduction certificate; 'j'hough it is submltted by Stari Mishra that in respect of"^< other persons such certif.jLcate is not insisted upon, if it is how the thing is doipe, then the petitioner must CCTnply with the requirement of si|tomission of produGtion certiflcate frcan the Canoetent Authoritv. GRPRJ—FS/31i—1/2001—50,000. o.3 Xf-HC-22 r^i" '^WR;FT, '^TrlwT^, t^[re~y \^Y '^^s?' ^T^r^i •{^ira-511^1 ^^W^Tlt^T 3Tlt^T 'i^T^R ^1N ^N^pfh;f 'HP^ff ^ ft^f TfWZR ^T 3:i1^R ^IT^F «• 3 o Let it be done withinl ^ertain quantity of rice is ^B no harm supplying sample ojl j^etitiones:^ if requested^ in ^hould also be done in <a<wn in this regard. The petition is dispo^ed of» accordfcnce ten days from t oday^ If r^jected^ in my view^ there rejected rice to ttae .his regard^ However^ ^uch with proeedure laid Certified copy as per rules<» ^ Sd/- Chief Justice