E BE§§ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA k9 , p " 6 7/00 (i/ RH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {CI No. )1 galvzem 2°“ a WRIT PETITION UNDER . CONSTITUTIo ARECLE 226 OF TH§ N OF INDIA L § PETITIONER M/s Sushila Dhan Prakriya Kendra, village Limtara, Dhamtari, Tahsil 8r, District Dhamtari (CG), through its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Chopra, S/o “Bhawarlalji Chopra, aged about 35 years, R/o D—221, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS n x 2. Collector (Food Branch), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). /3. Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation, through its Managing Director, ‘Raipur (CG). /4. Food Corporation of India, through District Manager, Raipur (CG). ,15. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, through its ~Managing Director, Raipur (CG). HIGH COI WRIT IRT PETITION OF CHHATTISGARH 1C) No. 125 0f2011 AT BUASPI JR Ag PETITIONER : M/Q Sushila Dhan Prakriya. Kendra. VER SI IS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhanisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA W SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. A ihotri J. Present: Shri RDGuru, Advocate f‘or the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for [he Stale/respondent No. 1 and 2. ORDER g ()RAI I) (Passed on 11 day of October, 201 1) 1. Challenge‘jn this petition is to the order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Collector (Food Branch), Dhamtari, whereby, the petitioner has been black-listed and has timber been restrained horn doing the work of custom milling until tilrther orders. 2. Shri Guru. leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugmd order has been passed without. atford'mg the petitioner an oppormm'ty of hearing to put forward its case which is against the principles ofnatural justice. Shri Guru relies on the averments made in para 8 ofthe retum filed by the State wherein, the State has submitted that it appears that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. On the other hand, Shn' Sag learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. l and 2 fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing was anorded to the petitioner before passing the impugied Q) (, order. 4. In View ofthe above, the impugned order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the State authorities to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised, aher affording proper opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/-' Amit Satish K. Agnihotri Judge