1 !i .i w HIGHCOURTOFCHMATTISGARH.BiLASPUR PETITJONER RESPONDENTS, W.P.(CyNb.2959/2G09 Duieshwar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Itwari Ram Sahu, Aged about 25 years, R/o Viiiage-Haiul, WaruNo.45,P.S. - La'bagh, RajnancigaQn, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Video Game Rarfour Licen«ee, Mamta Nagar Road (Tuislpur), Rajnandyaon, Dlstrict- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) i VERSUS 1. State of Chihattisgarh, Through Secretary, Dejpartment of Home Mffairs, D.K.S. iBhawan, Mantralaya , Raipur, Distr{ct-Ra{pur(C.G.} 2. GoEiector, Rajnandgaon, Dlstrict- F?ajnandgaQrr((D.G.). 3. Superintendentj of Poiice, Rajnandgaon, Djstrict- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Asslstant Exc-ise Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandyaon (O.GY 'L" . ••:1 :11/'.' ^ WRIT PETITiON UNDERARTSCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF SNDSA AyDearance: Mi. Prashun Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, GoVf. Advocate forthe respondents. ^^^ ^ '(13,84.2811) .,. : ;' • ,; '. • .; :• SUNIL KUMAR'SINHA.J. : • ;: • . .: ,' : , ;'^ .• ,i .,,i':' .1 .: ' :' Heard finally with the consent of ieame(|^l||^|lt¥ortne parties. ^W^.i^"'".''^'^.^^. Petitioner- Duieshwar Sahu was a iice|see ^jtynniny a Video GameParlour.Duringthe^ourseofjnvestigationpf^rimeNo.^4^ registered under Section 3 & 4-A of the Public Gaffiling Act^ variyus •;^11 !1 :• -.:. ^ • •/'11; 1;'.. ••..: ..•". .:"';.:' ;'.. • :':1'''1:'::%;1''''-;'/;: l.:'^ articies beionglny to the petitioner wereseEed from the possession of ihe petitioner on 02.09.06. A Criminal case is pending agajnst the !\ l:li ^! -.1 uii •ui ^i ilili.N C--7. TAm W.P. (Gt NO. 2059/2008 petitioner. On one or the other pretext, the petitioner was not aiiowed to run his Video Game Pariour. The petitioner,therefore, fiied writ petitlon (c) No. 176/09. The above writ petition came for heanng on 15.01.09. On the said date, learned Gounsei appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner does not want to contest the said writ petition on merits. However, he rnay be permitted to makea representation before the CoEiector with a directjon to consider and decide hls representation expeditiousiy in accordance with iaw on its own merits. This Court without expressing any opinion pf the merit of the case directed the concerned Coliector to consider the representation of the petltioner in accordance wlth law on its own merits and pass an appropriate order within a period of 6 weeks from the date pf receipt of the representation. Thewritpetitjonthuswasfinaiiydisposedof.i Mr. Prashun Bhaduri, j^arned cGUnsel |appearing on behaif of the petitiofter, submits that thereafter, the representatlon was fiied and it was dismissed vide orderdated 03.03.09 passed by the Coiiector in Revenue CaseNo.38-B/121/2008-09. His Submission is that the Coiiector uid not considerthe representation on merits and he slmpiy dismissed the same on the ground that the iice'nse of the petitio'ner was not renewed and t'ne petitioner was not h-aving iicense on t'ne date of consideratipn of the representation, therefore, the representation was liabie to 'oe djsmissed. He submits t'n-at the iicense of the petitioner was eariier renewed upto 07.08.08; Later on,st was further renewed up to 07.08.09andthenuptoQ7.08.IO. A Derusai of t'ne license would show that the renewai order which shows arenewaiypto 07.08.10, waspassed on 25.03.09 and iicense was given by the Additionai District Magistrate on 03.10.09^that rneans there was no itcense on the date of passing of the impugned order dated 03.03.09. Mr. Bhaduri very fairly submits that after 07.08.10, the license has not been further renewed. in the prevaiiing facts and circumstance, he makes a prayefthat the petitioner may be given an opportunity to get his IJcense renewed for further period and if his iicense isrenewe^ fo further period, he may further be given an opportunjty to m^ a W.P. i'Cli No. 2059/2GG8 representation before the Goiiector and in that case the or'der dated 03.03.09 may not come in the way Qf decision ofthe representation.. Mr. Sao submits that if the petitioner gets a iicense and he rnoves afresh representation before the Coiiector, t'nere is no harm if the concerned eoilector js directed to dedde the representation on merits. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is finaliy disposed ofwith a direction that if so advised, the petitioner may get his iicense renewed by taking appropriate steps in accordance with law; and In case Hls license is renewed, hewiii get an opportunity to fiie a representation before the Coiiector and the Coiiector would decide t'ne representation of the petitioner on rnerits in accordance with law within six weeks from the dafe of receipt of representation and the eariier order of the Cotiector dated 03.03.09 passedinRevenueCaseNo. 38-8/121/2008-09; wiil not come in the way of decidingthe subsequent representation. With the aforesaid observatlon/direction, the writ petition stands ftnaltydispQsed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge rahui .l,../