ili ^ & ^-t^-^ Ot M THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. S 2-1^- OF 2005 PETITIONERS^ : ^/y.' ^y./ ^<cy w/ ,0.<'^''/ / .•" ^y ^^/•" ^\f<.^ ^ '/^^' ^' 'y/ ^y Shyam Chandrakar S/o Topa Singh Chandrakar, aged about 54 years , occupation businessman , Proprietor Sharda Traders , Shri Ram Rice Mill, Gadadih (Durg) resident of Village Gadadih,Tahsil Patan, District Durg (CG). Nepal Singh Chandrakar S/o Kulanjan Singh Chandrakar, aged about years, Firm ^5^1 ^ ^\^ ^<$f?epresentative- Sharda Traders, Shri ^^^f^' Ram Rice Mm' Gadadih (Durg) Village ^ ^ Gadadih, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Food 85 Civil Supplies ,Govt of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, (Food Branch), Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG). 3. The Food Controller, Durg, Tahsil and district Durg (CG). 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG). WRIT PETITION U/S 226/227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3-^ ^IKI^PT, ^t^PTS^ '[^<rll^^< 3TT^T i-ra^ 54 WR^TT^RT^^M^...^?.^ ,.^ L— 3TT^^T^T f^Tt^^TI^T ^RW^Tf^T w^T^CT'w^cr 27-7-2005 Mrs. Renu Kochar, counsel flsr the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Otwani, Panel Law^er for the Sate/respondents. Heard both the counsel on a| The petitioners have preferr] ^ratefrr WTOt'^'te^t-^RSR ^3Tf^T3:n^?1 jmission. sd this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, questioi|iing the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 10-4-2001 passed l(>y the Food Controller, Durg; order dsited 4-6-2002 passed by the Gollector, |Durg; and order dated 19-5-2005 passed bythe Sessions Judge, Durg in Cri^ninal Appeal No.234/2002. Learned counsel for the petiljioners submits that petitioner No.1 moved application for renewal of the licen^e beyond December, 2000, however, no decision was taken by the responcjent Collector and thereafter, after a long time his prayer was rejected, then petitioner No.1 again moved for grant of fresh licence on 24-4-2001 and n^cessary fees was also deposited. In the circumstances, when the papers f<|>r grant of licence were already pending, action of the respondents was not l^gal. Having heard learned coun^el for the petitioner, 1 have perused the petition and relevant documents. Petitioner No.1 is the Proprijetor of Sharda Traders, Village: Gadadih and he was the licence holder un4er the WVS^[ Slj^Rlcl ^ <^W^ (^A^W PR-IT ^PTRsJ^ ^ f?f^%R) ^T^I, 199] 1991'), and the said licence was v^ No.2 is the representative of petitic) ^ _ moves^the Coilector for renewal ofl Iscence, therefore, his applicationi Qiereinafter referred to as 'the Order, lid up to 31st December, 2000. Petitioner ner No.1 fjrm. As petitioner No.1 did not licence and he moved after the expiry of for renewal of licence was rejected on 10.04.2001. However, the petitionjer again moved for grant of fresh licence XI-HC-22 W^T^T f^ra~^iT^T ^TW^rfN' ^S[ r^iqid^, ^Tfl^^Ko, f^^l^y 311^1 ^?1 cn 5.5 W<4^[T $I^HTch ^ 200 5~ Id-b^ ^n^T^'ww^f^T which remain pending tili 24-12^ on 24-12-2001 for a period offiv^ on 11-12-2001 the Sub Divisional reached to the petitioners firm irregularities were noticed, and it| Order, 1991, as a result of whic| receipt of the reply, impugned Collector, Durg, in which it was] provisions of Krishi Upaj Mandi paddy, 412 quintals of rice, 14^ without licence were confiscated preferred against the said order| tearned Sessions Judge, Durg, c| 2005. chl^Td^'1 ^l^<nT^f^t<Ri<^K ^3lf^T3T1^T i001 and ultimately the licence was granted years up to 31-12-2005. In the mean time, Officer (Revenue) & Assistant Food Officer ifor inspection. On inspection number of ^fl/as found that there is clear violation of the ^ after issuing notice to the petitioners and ^rder dated 4-6-2002 was passed by the |held that the petitioners have violated the pidhiniyam, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Order, 1991. Ultirfiately, the fooditemsi.e. 676.50 quintals of quintals of broken rice which were found to the Government account. An appeal was before the Sessions Judge, Durg, and the ismissed the appeal vide order dated 19-5- It is admitted position thatj the licence of the petitioner firm to deal in food grains expired on 30-1-200C) the ground that the applicationf<t>r renewal was filed delayed after expiry of licence and the said application v^as rejected on 10-4-2001. He again moved application for grant of licence or] 24-12-2001. Therefore, from 1| dealing in food itemswithout an^ which was not renewed by the Collector on 24-4-2001 and the licence was granted on L1-2001 to 24-12-2001, the petitioner was llicence and when on 11-12-2001 a search/ inspection was made at the premjises of the petitioner firm, confiscated items were found for which petitioner I^to.2 could not give satisfactory explanation. Without filing appeal against the| order of refusal to renew the licence, the petitioners moved an application for fresh licence on 24-4-2001. XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r f^t^3TT^T ^TW;HfgcT ^)^|cb 7S[ ^iqi^t<fl, ^TTI<Mll?, ^dKiy 311^1 M5|Cft WTFTT *^Jcb ''" <-^----- yy^ 200 5 56 3T1^ST ^cTTW ^cT - 3> Clause 4 (1) of the Orde.r, <=hi^f<n<JlTi ^i^<nT^*te^t'<Ri<^i< ^3T^'R'3TI^T 1991, envisages that after filing applicatjon before the Licensing Officer, if wi|hin 30 days licence is not issued then the Licensing Officer has to pass rea^oned order within 30 days that the person is not entitled for Jicence and w within 30 days no intimation is r II inform the party within 40 days. If the applicant did not receive the or|der within 40 days, then the applicant is required to send a reminder to t(ie Ijcensing authority and if after reminder ^ceived regarding rejection of the licence, then the licence will be considere<P to be accepted. No such notice was issuedl icence was granted on 24-12-2(p01 with effect from 24-12-2001 to 31-12- 2005. Therefore, from 1-1-20011 year, the petitioner firm conducteq during that period, search and irj premises, and the petitioner firm grain items without any licence. II petitioners and in turn, the petiti| order was passed. Since the business of food items without ar| was passed bythe Collector. In view ofthe above facts, orders impugned for the reason t| to the petitioners herein and ultimately, the to 24-12-2001, for a period of about one business activities without any licence and spection was conducted at the petitioners was found dealing in the business of food i the circumstances, the matter was placed before the Collector, who in the fir|st instance issued show cause notice to the ^ners filed reply, thereafter the impugned Ipetitioner firm was found dealing in the |y licence, therefore, the confiscation order do not find any illegality and infirmity in the lat the petitioner firm was found dealing in the business of food items witt{iout any licence under the Order, 1991. Therefore, there is no substance |in this writ petition. The Collector and the Sessions Judge have not cpmmited any illegality or Jnfirmity in passing the impugned orders. ^ }tMHA. XI-HC-22 3TT^T^)T R^i<=hW^T ^ri^^rf^T ^r Soma /.^ F^ 's^ r^iqi<n^, ^Tfl^^i^, fa^i^y 311^1 ^151 Cft ^..^.%.^^ 57 ^TR^TT^THI^ 200^ 3Tr^T^<TT^H:^ri?cT ^ In the result, the writ p^tition accordingiy, dismissed, at the ad^nission Consequently, M.(W.)P|No. 6265/2005 stand disposed of. is liable to be dismissed and it is stage itself. No.2710/2005, I.A.Nos.6264/2005 and Gbi<4l(n4l<i ^i^^il ^tel:A<fa<^i< ^3:rf^T3T1^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^fe^)