l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma.JJ. WRIT APPEAL N0. 504/2011 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Laxman Das Bajaj, S/o Shri Rawaldas Bajaj, aged about 48 years, C/o Nanak Pustak Bhandar, Hatri Bazar, Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Food, Consumer Protection, Civil Supplies, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Through Managing Director, Registered Office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai Maharashtra. 3. Collector- Food, OfFice of Cotlector and Food Controller, Cotlectorate Raipur (C.G.). 4. Gayatri Gas Agency Authorized Dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Proprietor Gayatri Soni, Near Government College, Kholwa Road, Bhatapara, Distt. Raipyr (C.G.). 5. Dwarika Soni, S/o Not known to the petitioner, R/o Gayatri Gas Agency, Near Govemment College, Kholwa Road, Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT. 2006 Appearance: Bharat Lal Demera, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for respondents 1 & 3 on advance copy. t-3ra -^" i •^y ^. .^y .:;^-^-'- ?5 WRIT APPEAL N0. 504/2011 SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. ORAL ORDER (04.11.2011) Heard on admission. AppellanVpetitioner has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 12.09.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5186/201 1. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the Writ Court. IVIr. Bharat Lal Demera, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that respondent No.4 committed malpractices and sold the LPG connection of the appellant to another person. When a complaint was made, the appeltant was offered new gas connection but no serious action was taken against respondent No.4. The Writ Court has observed that on the complaint made by the appellant, the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited initiated inquiry. The Writ Court has also observed that inspite of providing sufficient opportunities to the appellant to collect the new gas connection from respondent No.4 he has not taken any action. Even 3 members of respondent's corporation went to the. house of the appellant and advised him to obtain the new gas connection, at that time, the appellant informed them that he will collect the new gas connection later on. The Writ Court, therefore, while dismlssed, the writ petition has observed that about relief no. 2, main relief in the writ petition, the appellant/petitioner may approach the respondent's authority for getting new connection, If so advised. Mr. Demera submits that there is no order about taking appropriate action against respondent No.4. As stated above, an inquiry was conducted by respondent No.2 against respondent No.4 on fhe complaint of the appellant, therefore, action has been taken. If the appellant is not satisfied with the action taken by the respondent No. 2, fIW"T~~~-^^^is®?»>. /y WRIT APPEAL N0. 504/2011 he is free to avail other remedies for the eomplaint and grievance against respondent No.4 and also to persue further action on the complaint already made by him. Wtth the above observations, the writ appeal stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost. Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- ' Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge