lax IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AI BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. No. 359/2003 PETITIONER Kedia Castle Dellon I éustries Ltd. &%dia Nagar, {1% %¢Kumhari—490042 Dlstrlct Durg (C.G.) / With registered office at y} 6—B Express Towers, 42A, g Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta—7000l7 VERSUS l. State of Chhattisgarh through the Principal Secretary Department of Commercial Taxes (Excise) State of Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. EXcise Commissioner $§ate of Chhattisgarh Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. collector Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. Collector Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5. Collector Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 6. Collector ‘ Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 7. Collector Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 8. Collector Korba (Chhattisgarh) 9. Collector Janjgir—Champa (Chhattisgarh) 4» \ b ?." ?ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 F APPROPRIATE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE O PROHIBITION ETC. WRITS AND OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMU‘S AND OTHER WRITS AND DIRECTIONS: FOR ff /k /, Mp’dyw/I/ Wifh, +he consenf of bofh ‘Hne’coun‘sei 1‘his L.P.A. and Wrif ' PeTiTion No.909 of 2003 are disposzd of. The appelIoM/pefmoner fi 'Hne afooesoid wrif pa’fiféon for quashmg of fhe Circuior dafed 3/05/2001 which was produced a; AnnexurepP/5 +0 +he wmf pefm n and also souohf for Issue of a direction fa +he respondents fo refund fhe amoum’s as defodad m Annexure—P/12. ' The appellant/pei'ifioner' fi M.(W.)P. No.791 of 2003 for sfay By fhe impugned order dofed of fhe circular dafed 23/05/20 1A Judg has rejecfed fhe requesf on fhe O7/O4l2003 learned Single ground fho‘l The Circular soughf f be quashed was dofed 23/05/2001 and abou+ 22 monfhs have elaps d and he‘declined fo gram‘ inferim order and rejem‘e’d fhe aforesaid (W‘)P. No.791 of 2003. If is This d i ‘ XH'lCv—78 3a warm 'WW W mrm...m - Qt 200 mm (Wu) $§$§ mmm WaaTag‘ifai‘m“ ‘95 r 17/07/2003: — counsel for ‘Hne appellant ‘Shri Kanak Tiwari Dr. N.K. $1 Shukla, Addlt Advécafe Genaml, for I fhe 4 Sfufe/Eesponden‘r. Heard bofh fhe counsel. X1»! {C-w78 famgx a . mam \gl‘gw WWifWIfmi émifETmW were submi‘h‘ed +0 fhe responden da'i’ed 24/01/2003. JHe has prodm as Annexure-A/S and 1412 respl represenfa‘h'ons submif‘l’ed by +l1e passed by order. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Addifional I respondenfs would consider flw appellan'r/pefifioner wifhin fiffeen copy of 1M3 order and pass a spec fhe appellaM/pefifioner may be din if he desires. The appellan’r/pe1 represem‘afion if he desires. In fhe circums‘fances' fhe rd l fhe represenfafion submiHed by i appropria‘re speaking order wif‘nir Wim mm (mam mmm (:0 inferim order da‘red 07/04/2003 i has been challenged by fhe appellnn Shri Kunak Tiwcxri counsel f0 r fhe appellanf/pe‘rifioner‘ submii'fed fhaf on behalf of fhe appellanf/pefifioner number of represenfaficng fs. The Iafesf represen'i'ahon was :ed fhe some along wifh fhis appeal, )ndenfs have no+ considered fhe appellan‘i/pe‘fh‘ioner and have nof )assed by fhe learned 5ingle Judge f in fhis L.PAA. dvooafe General submiffed fhaf fhe e represeni‘a‘fion given by ‘lhe days from fhe da+e of reoeipf of a king order. e He also submi‘Hed flna‘f acfed fo give a fresh represenfafion H‘ioner is a‘l’ liberfy ‘io file fresh :spondenfs are directed 1‘0 consider he appellant/pefifioner and pass on fif‘feen days from The dafe of x1. “(t v 7x 3m wmzvm, 2W1 arré, Wmg} ~ k?AN¢\§ $903 WTW" 1 m 200 mmmafiawv