IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1474 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 31, 2008 Karam Chand Behari Lal & Co. …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for commanding the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner-firm to sell the rice in the open market. The petitioner-firm purchased paddy from the open market worth Rs. 40 lacs. After conversion of the paddy into rice, on 3.12.2007, the petitioner-firm offered levy rice to the District Food and Supply Controller and Inspector Food and Supply, Moga, in accordance with the Levy Control Order, 1983. However, no response was received. On 18.12.2007, the petitioner-firm again approached the Director, Food and Supplies Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, offering for supply of levy rice to Punjab Government. This time also no destination for the supply of levy rice was given to the petitioner-firm. On 9.1.2008, petitioner-firm sent a legal notice to the respondents for permission to sell the rice in open market (P-3). However, no action is stated to have been taken. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the paper book. C.W.P. No. 1474 of 2008 Before disposing of this writ petition we would refer to the views of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. In paras 38 and 39 of the judgment it has been required that whenever notice under Section 80 C.P.C. or under any similar provision are sent then it is mandatory on the part of State or Central Government or other authorities to send reply to such notice. It is well settled that before seeking a direction or a writ of mandamus, a demand justice notice is required to be served on the respondents as has been done in the present case. The petitioner had sent a legal notice, dated 9.1.2008 (P-3), to which no reply is stated to have been received. It has also been observed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that in cases where such like notice has not been replied then cost is required to be imposed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition at this stage with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the legal notice dated 9.1.2008 (P- 3) by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 31, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2