3 ^^ IN THB.HIQH _CQUR'I: _OS< JHBICATURE CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR aaP.NO.'Z^-ft^S /2003 /^ ^ PETIIIONER , Rainbhau Khaparde S/o Badaram Khaparde, Aged about 60 years. ft/o Ranipur Ward.Dhamtari Dj.strictjDhamtari (CG) . V VERSUS RESPONDESTS / ''...•f/^S .^-^&i" ,^;.^ '^^" y 1) Krishi Hpaj Mandi Samlti'' Bhamtari, Ihrough its iSeiScgSarx,' Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. Bhaiatari.Distt.Dhainfeari. (CG) 2) Ihe President, Krishi tJpaj Mandi Samiti, Bhamtari.Bistt.Bliamtari (CG) r ^ '';•.. WRIT PETITION 0NDER ARTICfeE 2 26/22 7 QP IHB CGNriTtJTION OF I N D I A XI-HC-22 3^'-<ii<<iy<<, eiTnwis, Ridiuy 3ii^i <4acb . i^-p. »^o- u *<i*<ni sniitn •-••••••••••••••••"" gq^ 200^ R'b'A'" 3T1^T?iT R-fi+sn^T »li«hdf??T ^lIRi •3:n^T?RrTW(rf?(T 06.9.2006 I.A.MTo.7846/2004 coiinsel hds Stui Arun ShuMa, SIui R.S. Marhas, Heard. This is aaappticaticjn Diwakar, Sr. Advocate Vakatcttnama, as the ffle Shri Arun ShuMa now he has ffled Power on In the facts aad appUcation is allowed. The power filed by bis associates stands permitted to appear on beh|a] This interun In view of the abol hearing also stands dispos<( co|unsel for fhe petitioner. for the respondeats. appUca4on W.P.No.2443/2003 ledmed Shri Arun Shukla, Shri R.S. Marhas, Ai^uments heard. Order dictated as foUows; <hi<<fci'il1-f »(iiciT^te^)-<.Ri+<ii< ^aif^iTgn^T filed fiTOin the oflSce of Shri P. Ifor withdrawal of fhe earlier been wifhdramTt fii>m his office. sii|bnuts that after obteiaing N.0.C., )ehalfofthe petitioner. circuinstances, this interiin Slhri wittldrawn dalf hri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocate aiid and Shn Arun Shukla is ofthe petittoner. stands disposed of. , I.A.No.7453/2003 for m^ent •dof. lefanied couusel for the petitioner. counsel for the respondents. 'A (tft^y^) VUitliilituLJ—i XI-HC-22 3^'-<<l<41d<l, ®Tn'M'16,Rdltfy 3ii^i 4a<»> »:.('.\ *<IKMI sh^l* •••••••••••••••••••••• ^p]- 2003 (2l't)«d" a.n^r^r R-ii+sn^T StttiiqidfSH Stttiiqi sn^rg^iraTHfeT -•L- <tii<iFd<fl-f ii>«-]Tffte^t<Rit<;i< ^isri^Tsn^r ORDBR (6.9.2006) By way of this •a^iit petition, filed tuider Ardcle 226/227 of fhe Constitu|tion of India, the petitioner has chatlenged the legaUty, v^lidily aad propriety of the order dated 25.7.2003 (Annexuije P-8), passed by fhe Krishi Upaj Mandi-Sanuti, Dhaintari, I(ereniafter referred to as 'Samiti'. The brief facts are fl|iat the petitioner was a Ucensee of Krishi Upaj Mandi Saiiulji, Dhamtari. He was granted a Ucense of We^hinan by ti|ie said Samiti in acoordance with the provisions of Sectkin (32 of tfae C.G. Krishi Upaj Maadi Adhiniyam, 1972, hcrcinsffter referred to as the 'Act'. The said Ucense was granted |to thc petitkiner on 1.4.1999 aad thereaflter, the same wa^ continued tiU passiag of the impugued order dated 2^ cause uotices were issued] P-4 17.6.2003 and P-6 da ^7.2003. It appears fhat 2 show to the petitioner vide Annexures .2003. It was aUeged in fhe <ed 3.7. notices fhat fhe petition^r used to file various litigations against fhe Mandi, due to ia contesting the cases be^»rethe Courts. It is further stated that the petitioncr unnece with fhe higher authoritie license of the pctitioner ^ grounds. RepUes to fhe which, the Maadi ofBcers are busy ssarily enters into correspondeuce s of the Mandi and aU these acts are the breach of condit^ons of the license and why the hould aot be canceUed ou these above notices were given by the 1 r XI-HC-22 s'sr^iTiTRpr, ®Tfl<H'i6,[sidi'y^< Sii^l sach .^.p/p' 1-4 ^ww Shlich ••••••••••••••••••••• ^ 200i {^^"" air^r^T R-fi* SII^T snH gf?(T 3fi^r?RiRredf?H ~\ petitioner on 25.6.2003 (Aimexure P-7). Afiter receiviag fhe fhe Mandi Committee by took a decision that in fiu-ther in. B^ht ofthe repy of the petitioner should b! canceUed by the Comnutt( P-8 is aa order issued by above decision taken by tt^i Learaed counsel foi of fhe Mcensing conditi^ petitiouer. He farfher President of the Taulaya Samiti, Dhamtari and fh< required to make of the Conunittee aad tt maaner, does not violat^ therefore, fhe order ps^ accordance with law. A repfy to the respondents, ia which, preluainaiy objection ha^ by the Samiti is aa orde^- aad ia view of the prowi^i order was aa appeatab|l aforelsaid WTfei^T tniRrr'if tecA-rfSFRK ^srf^rgn^r (Anuexure P-5) and 12.7.2003 ^foresaid repUes of the petitioner, Iresplution No.3 dated 23.7.2003, |light of fhe grounds raised and filed by the petitioner, the license caaceUed aud it was accordiagly ;. The iinpugned order, Aunexure Ipie Secretaiy in consequence ofthe Mandi Samiti. the petitioner submits fhat none >us have been violated by fhe sjtibmits fhat the petitioner is the Reja Sangh of Krishi Upaj Maadi srefore, on maay occasions, he is wifh the higher auttiorities act of fhe petitioner, in any any of the licensiag conditioi^, i^sed by the Sanuti is not iu corrcsp4ndence Itte petition has been iSled by fhe 4part fi?om ttie other objections, a been taken that the order passed under Section 33 of the said Act ions of Section 34 of fhe Act, the order aad siace the sffective XI-HC-22 ~3:3t •^WM'if, ®Tn^'16,Rlitiyy 3ii^l <^ach -^.h:5;.P..?7.4.tl3. *<IKC<lsht<|tb'"""""""""""" TP]; 2003 f=lfc«^,' sn^r^r f^iTOsn^T St)*lieh gf?cT 3T1^T^cTTgT?ri?(T ^- throufeh respo|udents tb altemative remedy was not have visited to the byp^sing the said reined^ I have heard leamfc and have also gone It appears that ir( cancelled on the ground| breach of couditions o) petitioner uor fhe license and in this inaanle) position to ascertaiu as were aad how fhe petitioner. This Court is preposition that the not a ground eifher jurisdiction itnder Articlej a rute of prudence and facts and circunistaace o) justice between the parti4s of inerits of an order pa^i! the subject niatters facts iu issue, which ma^ statutoiy remedy is av^i a|?ailable to the petitioner, he should High Court in the first instance should be exhausted^pri<])r in which, such an exercisje 'ni'ilfa'ift'l >lliMT^'fecit<RfWI< ^arf^R'an^T i^d counsel for the parties at length the recoris offhe writ petition. this case, the Ucense has been that the petitioner has conunitted the Ucense. But, neither fhe -)o|udents have filed the copy of fhe in|er, at present this Court is not ia a what the conditions ofthe Ucense c<tnditions were breached by fhe fJLiUy ava^labflity t<k lias conscious about fhe legal of an altemative remedy is obUterate or to oust fhe writ 226 of fhe Constitution. It is oiity to be adopted in the context of fhe case and wifh a view to seciire 4s. Iffhe question appears to be one ^sed on factaal grounds, which are for ascertaining the disputed reqiure evidence and if an effective ^ilable in this regard, then, tfaat to directly chaBengmg the order- may be undertaben^o -" of a^alysis y \- XI-HC-22 3<?"'4I^ICl'i<,riTflti'ld, RlCllUy 3TT5t?T4acb „_.":!':..''r.'l.4.3.. t|l<4MI shMI* •••••••••••••"•••••• ^ 2003 [e|'tl«d an^r^T R-fi+sn^T Sh1 flf?tT ^^y a.n^T?^(iRrc<rf?a' Since, fhere is an| against the order, pass^d prciper to observe fhat| altemative and ef&cacioilis fhe appenate authorily taken by fhe said author|ity. Iii the facts and petition is disposed ofwj fhe petitioncr may ffle authority aad if such an| days fiiom today, the the same in accordanfce preferabfy wifhin a presentation of the app|sal passed by fhis Court. Certified <oi<<Ffi41-i KII<'I| ^'fs<^t<Ri<^i< ^ " ^ Stf^q'ST^T |effective statutory renaedy of appeal by the Mandi Saiaiti, I deem it tlie petitioner, who is having aa reinedy, may file aa appeal before ^nd appropriate decision should be {ity. circumstances of the case, this (th an observatiou that if so advised, an appeal before the appropriate appeal is filed within a period of 15 Ipropriate authority shaU dispose of with law as eariy as possible of eitfat weeks fixim the date of along-with a copy of this order aifpropriatf Co^>y as per rules. Sd/- SunilK.umarSinha — - .'Judge (•fl^^f^) </\^