9?. ^/.•J' HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRJT PETiTION N0, 349s QF 2006 Ramashankar Prasad, Son of Shri Brijkishore Sao, aged about 38 years, resident of Kurud Roaa', Kohka, BhMai, District Durg (C.G.) Vs. 1. RESPONDENTS 2. 3. of Chhattisgarh, Through - the Secretary, Civi! Supply and Food Department, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Food Controller, Departmenf of Food & Ch/it Supply, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The District Coiiector, Districf Durg, (CG) PETmONER 4. The Food Inspector, District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION N0.3496 OF 2006 Sajwat Hussain, aged about 40 years, son of Abdu! Sattar, resident or Panchsheei Schooi, Zone, 1, Sector-11, Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Vs. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - the Secretery, Civi! Supply and Food Department, Dau Kat'yan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Food Contro!!er, Department of Food & Civil Suppiy, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The District Coiiector, District Durg, (CG) The Food Inspector, District Durg (CG) WRIT PETlTiON N0.3497 OF 2006 PETITiONER Lakhpati Sao,.son of Shri Rameshwar Sao, agecf about 35 years, resident of Camp No.-1, Shastri Chok, Laibahadur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Stats of Chhattisgarh, Through - the Secretary, Civii SuppSy and Food Department, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Food Controiier, Department of Food & Civi! Supply, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 26 PETmONER 3. The District Collector, District Ourg, (CG) 4. The Food Inspector, District Durg (CG) WRiT PET!T!ON N0.3498 OF 2006 Manishankar Prasad, aged about 42 years, son of Brijta'shore Prasad, resident of Kurud Road, Kohka, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Vs. RESPONDENTS ^. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - the Secretary, Civil Supply and Food Department, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Food Controller, Department of Food & Clvii Suppiy, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The District Coiiector, District Durg, (CG) 4. The Food inspector, District Durg (CG) s* Shri T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petltioner. Shri Sanjay S. AgrawaS, learned G.A. for the (Passed on 25m Juiy, 2008) Al! the writ petitions deserve to be aliowed on a short ground. The petitioners are iicence hoiders under the Chhattfegarh Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979 (for short 'the Licencing Order'). It is stated that the Food Controiler, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, District Durg, the second respondent herein, in each of these writ petitions, wlthout issuing any nottoe to the petitioners has suspended the Sicences granted to them. These writ petitsons are fiied complaining that the impugned orders passed by the second respondent are violative of mandatory provision of the proviso to Ciause 10 of Licencing Order. The proviso So Ciause 10 provides that no order of canceilation or suspension of ticence shai! be made under Ciause 10 unless the licensee has been given a reasonabte opportunity of stating his case against the proposed 27 -3- cancellation or suspension, as the case may be. Therefore, the impugned suspension orders cannot be sustained in law. (2) in the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order in each of these writ petitions is quashed. However, this order shat! not come in the way of the second respondent from passing appropriate order after notice to the petitioners and giving them opportunity of being heard. ^ Sd/- Chief Justice