^ e ^l".? f1 B.EFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0. / PETITIONER : 6f^2- OF 2011 ^ ^ov./-^.' ^v^"" ^ ^.r;^^v RESPONDENTS : .^ Pradeep Kumar Khamparia, S/o. Late A.K. Khamoaria, aqed bout 46 years, Presently Posted as Senior Assistant, State Cjyil SuDDly "F<%i)«l«tEBllhfl Corporation, Biiaspur"A District Biiaspur (C.G.) present resident at S. MIG-33, Pariiat Extension, Nehru Naaar. Biiasour, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. ^ 2. ^ ^ State of Chhattisqarh, Through: the Secretary, Food, Civii Supply & Consumer Protection DeDartment, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raiour (C.G.) The Generai Manaqer, Chhattisgarh State Civii Supply CorDoration, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The Chairman, Chhattisqarh State Civil Suppiy Corporation, Raipur, District RaiDur (C.G.) The Manaaina Director, Chhattisgarh State Civi! Suppiy Corooration, RaiDur. District Raiour (C.G.). The District Manaqer, Chhattisgarh State Civi! SuDDiv CorDoration, Ambikapur, District Surauia (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA 1 ~i>. f& ^^'^s^ '.esssa jj '^. %s^/^' ''%.^ 'y?ay^2- ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PKITINKBR DIWAKER W.P.tSl.NO. 6192/2011 PBTITIONER RJBSPONDBNT8 versus Pradeep Kumar Khamparia State ofC.G. & Others Shri V.K.Paadey, counsel ibr fhe petitioner. ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.L. forthe State/resp. No.l. Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for resps. 2 to 5 on advance copy. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OFLTHE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA ORDBR (17.10.2011) Contention of Shri Pandey, counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 30.7.2011 (Aimexure P/l), recoveiy ofRs. 4,36,051 has been ordered by fhe respondent N0.4 arid against the said order the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before fhe resp. No.3 i.e. Chainnan, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation, Raipur. He subiuits that the purpose of ffling this petition wouM be scrved if direction is issued to the respondent N0.3 to decide the pendiag appeal ofthe petitioner, On fhe ofher hand, it Taas been argued by Shri Behar, counsel for resps. 2 to 5 fhat the petitioner has preferred an. appeal ii:cently ie. on 26.8.2011 aad wifhout waiting for sufficient titae he has rushed to fhis Court and fherefore ftie petition is premature. Consideruig fhe facts and circuinstances of the case aad the Kmited prayer of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 is directed to decide the pending appeal of fhe petitioner as expeditiously as possible in accordaace wifh. law. It is xuade clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on fhe nierits of the case aad the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the appeal after considering aU fhe aspects of fhe case, iu accordance with law. Pridnker Diwaker 1 1