ci^ect^ :-» f "••». BEFORE THE HON.'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPURP C.G. In the Matter of W.P.No.-Le2-^/2003 / PETITIONER Sardar Harjinder Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o. Shri Sardar Pritam Singh, R/o. Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgafh) Versus 0- State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary Department of Excise, Mantralay D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENTS, ^>- 1) /^ ^ .c-^f?».-'' (^/J7^ ^y <^--' ^'y/ S;TITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 of THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND /OR ANY OTHER COMMAND OF LIKE NATURE 2) 3) Cominissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Collector, Department of Excise, Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). ^_J^._ '^,'';i?^^?:'';^^^SS^S^^iS^^Si^^^^^K '^sSM '^ •;S::%;?SS;S^?®:^if%'^^i5 ;^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PetitjQner W.P.No.1028 of 2003 Sardar Harjinder Slngh Sta+e of Chhattisaarh & Others WritPetition under.Article 226/227 ofthe Constitutio" of indla 3. 'bie Shri Justice N. K. A.aan*ral. Shri Rahul Tamaskar. Advocate forthe Detitioner Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Generai vvith Ms. yciu Pandev. Panei Lawver for the State/rRS!'lo"dsnte [f3a^e-e^^ s^^-t, ^<5^ f^siThs f>x AgE^ii?,e»-a- nft^^\ 'eaSt.s.s'^ ^lgs ^s ucay !L?g j^iiyu&i.. AV iMj er i.m. 1. The petitioner, who was granted license for sa!0 of poppy s?raw (Doda) in accordance with the terrns and cor'di'"on<;; O'F lirenss und.er the Narcotic Drua and PsvchQtroD'c Substanr;as (C.G.'1 Ruies, 1985, has flled this petition ac's'npt th<? jmpucir'ed demand of Rs. 2,12,502/- as Hcense fee cfue 2. The iicense was aranted to the Detitioner for fho nnrlod start'? .04.2002 endina on 31.03 2003 for sel'in" of the sgma to the persons of the category of PS-2 & PS-3. As tha petit'opei" could not deoosit the license fee. hls sec"r't" dorlrl.?it ws>c forfeited and order for recoverv has been issueri ''Anr'exure p/1). Learned counsei aDDearina for the oetitioner ha? sijbmitte^ thst the Detitioner could not Drove his businsas to th'? extent h(? could de'oosit the iicense fee. —ad_ s 4. To our opinion, once the petitioner has participated In the license process and accepted the terms gpd condit'onc, h° cannot run s.wav froTi the sams thisrofnm^ wp do "ot fi""< anv case in Tavour of the oetitioner frr iuciicia! ints'"farance. Therefore. we think it Drooer th;2t consi'jerjnn th° f'nsnfiai condition 'of the petitioner, the respondcnts may »!!""' the tioner to deoosit the amount wh'ch 's r>o"i/ gs oer notic0 dated 11.02.2009, issued by Additiona! Tehs"riar (Ews0; fAnnexure R/5'' is Rs. 1.23.737/-, in <;our eniisi monthiv installments. With these observ/stion snd direct'on thss n='tlt|np ctgni-is disposed of. Mo order asto costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu