HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(C ) No. 666 of 2011 PETITIONER Anil Luniya, S/o Shri D.C. Luniya, Aged about 41 years, Proprietor Anil Traders, HIG- 110/1 1 1, Padmanabpur, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Special Secretary, Commercial and Industrial Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) " 2 The Secretary, Commercial and Industrial Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 The Collector, District North Bastar (Kanker) (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance : Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal and Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (01.09.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) Heard on admission. (2) The petitioner is a Contractor. He is doing business in the name and style of M/s Anil Traders, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). The petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the State Government taking a decision that since many cases relating to contravention of Forest Laws, Mines and Minerals Laws, Environmental Laws, Illegal Mining and Recovery of Royalty etc. are pending against the petitioner, therefore, the Government will not enter into any commercial contract with the firm of the petitioner and also with vatti W.P.(C) No. 666 of 2011 its associates flrms. It was further directed in the order that the aforesaid decision of the Government may be reviewed after disposal of the above cases pending against the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner has challenged the validity of this order directly before the Supreme Court vide Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 185 of 2009 which came up for hearing on 4.5.2009. On that day learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to pursue other remedies which was granted and the above writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn in the Supreme Court. (3) Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order was passed without affording opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. h (4) l have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. (5) The above contention of Mr. Agrawal is factually incorrect. In fact, a show-cause notice dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure—P/4) was served upon the petitioner giving details of the cases pending against him and the petitioner was called upon to appear on 22.9.2008 before the concerned authority and show the causes as to why the proposed action may not be taken against him. It appears that the petitioner did not turn up to tile reply on 22.9.2008 and the said decision was taken by the Government and the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner may not have any grievance on that account and the order cannot be quashed on the said ground. Moreover, the impugned order itself contains that it may be reviewed after disposal of the cases pending against the petitioner which remedy is still available to the petitioner in due course of time. (6) For the foregoing reasons, i do not find any substance in this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge