IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ‘ wm Peti'rion c No. 6&1 of 2006 PETITIONER: Indian Broiler Farm, A parfner‘ship firm registered under The Indian Par’rner‘ship ACT, Through iTs Execu’rive Director Anjum Alvi, S/o LaTe Dr. Iqbal Alvi, Aged abouf 42 years, R/o Anupam Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Chhm‘fisgarh. - Versus - RESPONDENTS I “ : 1. S‘rafe of Chha’r’risgarh, Through fhe SecreTary, Deparfmem‘ of Urban Developmen1 & Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Director, Department of Urban Development 6i Administration, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through its Commissioner; Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgh. ar % WRIT PEITTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUHON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS DIRECTIONS ETC. IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble shri Satish K. Ayihotri, J. W. P. No. 6612 of 2006 Petitioner : Indian Emiler Farm Versus V Respondent : State of Chhattisgarh 85 others Shri Rajeev Shn‘vastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N, K. Ageuwal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Smt. Hamida Siddque, Advocate for the respondents No. 3, 4 8r, 5. ORDER (5th December , 2006) 1. The petitioner, which is a partnership iimi, engaged in the business of poultry fanning ~ selling chicken (dressed/ undressed) has med the instant pen'tion seeking a dilection to the respondent No.3 (Municipal Corporau'on, Bilaspur) to issue licence on the application made by the petitioner, for which licence fees has already been received by the respondent No.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner silbmits that in the year 2005— 2006 though the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur received the requisite licence fee but on 6.9.2005 an order was issued to the petitioner to close its business of selling chicken. That order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petih'on No. 4672/2005. Since the period of licence, for which the licence fees was received by the Municipal Corporan‘on, was expiied, therefore, that petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 16.2.2006 for issuing licence for selling '\,. chicken, which was mccived by the respondent No.3. The said application was not considered by the mspondent/ Corporation. .Smt. Hamida Siddque, learned counsel appealing for the respondents] Coworation submits that the petitioner has applied for renewal of the licence vide application dated 16.2.2006 (Annexnre P/ 14). Since there is no licence in favour of the petitioner, there is no occasion for renewal of the same. . Be that as it may, the petitioner may make an application with requisite licence fees and in turn the respondentslMunicipal Corporation shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law. . For the reasons stated above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnilnotri Judge i \ Thakur