HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon’ ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon’ ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Petition No. 2799 of 2004 Petitioner Santosh Kumar Shrivas, s/o. late Shri Lakhanlal Shrivas, aged aboQut 36 years, r/o.‘Hanuman Chowk, Purani Basti, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). Vs. Respondents. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Depaitment of Commercial Taxes (Excise), Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Excise Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Collector, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). Superintendent of Police, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). 5. District Excise Officer Durg (Chhattisgarh). 6. Prabhakar Sharma, Excise Sub- lnspector, Circle No.3, R/o. Qr. No. 8- A/Street-33/Sector—1, P./O. Bhilai, District Bhilai (Chhattisgarh). 7. .Station House Officer, Bhilai Bhatti, Police Station Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). hex (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Present: Shri Varun Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. «z ORAL ORDER l (Passed on 7—9—2010) v Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 23 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of CountryiForeign Liquor Rules, 2002. He further submits that inthe meanwhile, the period for the licence granted to the petitioner was over and therefcre. the petitioner isnot pressing the challenge to constitutional validity of the above rules since the» petitioner hae already availed the licence for its total tenure by virtue of interim order passed by this court on 14~9—2004. The only dispute between the petitioner and the respondent authority is with respect to recovery of iicence fees and other dues arising out of the contract He further submits that tlhis petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appro priate representation for redressal of its grievances raised in this petition before the respondent~authority and the respondent authority may be directed to decide the said representation in accordance with law. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that he has mo objection if the petition is disposed'of in the above terms. ln View of the above, this petition is disposed of as not pressed with libei'ty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation for redressal of its grievan ces- raised in this petition before the respondent authority who in tum shalt decide the said representation, in accordance with law. stir. i i i . 8d!— ' D‘HIRENDRA MISHRA ‘Judge §§ i R.N. Chandrakar Judge '& Raju