^. f"~ BEKC 1.e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) W. P. N0.5^5^ OF 2005 'f PETITIONERS ^^.i!...c,-^^. ^^^•- 4^?x y^""' ..-•".^ ,<^w ^>-'" ^ 1. Ashok Kumar Agrawal, S/o Narayan Prasad Agrawal, Aged 42 years, Proprietor Firm M/s. Maruti Trading Company, Raigarh, and R/o Mathumuda, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ^ 2. Ramavtar Sharma, S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Sharma, Aged 52 years, Manager Firm M/s. Maruti Trading Company, Raigarh, & R/o Mastagali Beedpara, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VE RS U S RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh, ^ Dist.Raigarh(Chhattisgarh) 2. Firm Radha Krishna Rice Parboiling Industry, ^ Manakhandi, Mandir Hasaud, Djstrict Raipu r (C.G.) <3. Firm Maha-Vaishnav Dhan ^ Katai Kendra, Manakhandi, Ramsagarpara, Raipur, Tah. & District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: L—...—.-...-._„...-.____. 1 XI-HC-22 3T^^T^T f^Tt^3T^T ^iW^cT -4 ^[ ^!^§<rl4,^-Ji^^^ ?^<r<W^< 3TS^T^5|eft WT?rrgww^p-d-w'/"- ^ 200^ f^rc^ 3TI^T?^n'W?TfN' 29.7.2003. Shri Manindra Shrivi Afroz Khan, counsel for th| Shri Y,S. Thakur, Go^ Heard, By the instant petit^ the Constitution of Indi^ relief that District Judge, hearing of Miscelleanous chj4ld41^ WR^ff ^ fe^ <?^W{ ^3Tf^H3n^T astava, Sr. Counsel with Shri s petitioners. ft. Adv. for the State. on filed iinder Article 227 of the petitioners Iiave soiight Raigarh be directed to stay the Appeal No.l71-A/1999 and to qiiash the order dated |.6,6.2005 passed by learned District Judge rejecting tl^e prayer of the petitioners for staying the proceeding of ^ Learned Sr. Counsel the petitioners herein respondent Nos.2 & 3 an<^ ensure that levy on this ri| ^ppeal, |Tor the petitioners argued that purchased the rice from at the tinie of purchase they ^e is paid by respondent Nos.2 & 3 and in token thereojT each of the respoudent has issued two levy paid certijficates along with cash meiao to the petitioners. How^ever, later on out of th@^- certificates one levy cert|Lficate issued by each of the respondent was found J|orged, therefore, a criminal proceeding was initiatecjl aginst the petitioners & respondent Nos.2_& 3 andj under Sections 3 ^ 7 of t] He further argued that tl| a charge sheet has been filed h.e Essential Coiainodities Act. ie petitioners have challenged that charge sheet iinder Section 482 of the (A^fe^) Fr-~- XI-HC-22 ^^ 3TI^^T^T f^TT^^T^T ^iW^cT 3^* ^TRToW^ iSTJlRT7T?^ [^^1^^< 3^yfq^^ <Tm€yTT$h^l^h ^ 200 3:n^T5^rr^K^f?cf before this Court__and cri petitioners ha^^-been staj the meaatime, the rice petitioners under levy <=hl^?d4)^ WT^ff if te^T^^ilT ^3Tf^R"3TT^T |niinal proceedings against the red by this Court However, in |which was purchased by the paid certificate has been confiscated by the C(|)llecfor, against which the petitioners have preferre() bfore the District Judge, a request was made to decide the appeal till th^ under Section 482 of th^ inipugned order. He furth< is deicded prior to decis: this Court under Section likely to affect the interes District Judge be directe^ petition iinder Section 48; I have penised tt^ learned District Judge, R| hearing of appeal cannot| an appeal, which is pending pRaigarh, He further urged that |learned District Judge not to niater filed before this Court Cr,P.C, is decided, however, learned District Judge rjejected the said request vide ^r submitted that if that appeal [on. of the petition filed before 482 of Cr.P.C. then that mav ^t of the petitioners, therefore, the operatiou of impugnejd order be stayed and learned not to hear the appeal till the £ofthe Cr.P.C. is decided. je impugned order in which [aigarh has mentioned that the |be stayed for indefinite period uuless any stay grante^ in the petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.j Having heard learne of the opinion Tthat th< per^erse nor learned Dis d counsel for the parties, I aci order inipugned is neither Lrict Judge has conimitted any XI-HC-22 3^T ^n^T^T^ i?TflRFT?^ M^W^i an^Tq^r^ ^i^<ys8 $h^iieh ^t^<;^oo"""a9^ ^{q[- 200 f^"^' 3TI^^T^T f^Tt^W^T ; ^iwd^cT . ••ti^;^' -'?B-N ^?' ^ 3:n^T?^Ti'8cP:^rfN -Y ^raf^ftT WRTt'^'fe^-^RZR ^3Tf^q'3TT^T material irregularity or il^ therefore, no stay can be ^ appeal by the District Jud^ ^•"x at liberty to Biake a pi ^expeditious hearing of th^ expeditious hearing of the |egality in passing the same, tranted against the hearing of |e, However the petitioners are 'ayer before this Court for petition filed under Section ^^t2 oftlie Cr.P,C and at t^e saaie tiine they cau apprise learned District Judge thajt they are niaking prayer for Ipetition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and thesanie wil|l be decided at the. earliest, therefore, he may wait fc| appeal. In view of above, I <^ this petition and same is (p^isposed of with the direction aforesaid. r some time in hearing the o not find any substance in Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (<ft^^^)