•li3lli!:;-iir;:^:fii]:?)^i-l!ii! -;: HIGH CQURT OFCHHATnSGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ 5TOIT PETITION (0 No.2771 OF 2010 Vs. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA APPEARANCE: Mr. Vishnu Koshta, coiinsel for the pctitioner. Mr. Amrito Das, P.L. forthe State/respondente. ORAL ORDBR (02.08.2010) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, 01. By this writ petitiou filed under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India petitioncr prays for the foUowiag relief(8): "10. RELIBFtSI SOUGHT: The hiunble petitioner thus prays that fhis Hon'ble Court inay kiadly be pleased to pass appropriate writ/order/direction as undeK PETITIQNER Puraima Marketiug, through : its Proprietor Ajay Jain son of Shri BasaatUal Ji Jaia, ^ed 43 years, Occupation Busiaess, Address 11 Sanfha Bazar, Indore (M.F). RESPOMDBNTnS 1. State of Chliattisgarh, through : the Director General of PoUce, Mmistry of Hoine AEfairs, PoUce Head Quarters, Raipiu- (C.G). 2. Inspector General of Police (F& F), PoUce Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G). 3. Deputy Inspector General of PoUce (P & A), PoUce Head Quartcr, Raipur (C.G). 4. Textile Coiumittee, Through Head of fhe Expert Committce, Vrmdavaa, First Floor, 744, WHC Road, Dharampefh, Nagpur-400010 ^ (A) Set aside the impugned inalaGde order dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure P-20) issued by respondent no.3 to the petitioner; (B) The respondents niay kindly be ordered to release fhe payment of the goods supplied to the Department; (C) Any other relief which fhis Court may deein fit, be grauted to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitiouer uadertakes supply of certaia articles to the respondent department by pardcipating in tender proceedings. The respondent deparbnent issued a tender notice dated 28.5.2008 for suppty of 11862 Woolen Jersys and 11664 Steel Tiflfin Boxes. The petitioner participated ia the said proceedings. After scrutiny, fhe respondents placed supply order dated 27.08.2008 on petitioner for suppty of above goods. Accordiug to the respondents, fhe goods supplied by the petitioner are not upto fhe inark,. therefore, they issued show cause notice dated 24.10.2009 to hini seeking reply &oaa. him withia 15 days. According to the petitioaer, he has ffled point-wise reply to show cause notice on 04.11.2009 but the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 03.02.2010 canceling the supply order dated 27.8.2010 for supply ofWoolen Jersys, fhe agreeinent dated 22.9.2008 aud also forfeiting the security ainoiint deposited by the petitioner. 4. It appears fhat though fhe petitioner has submitted reply to show cause poiat-wise but iu the impugaed order nothiag has been uientioned regardiag reply but siniply it has been ^ ^ 5. inentioned that ia tlie reply submitted by fhe petitioner no such fact has been inentioned by him by which a decision ia favour offhe Fimi could be taken. This caunot be said to be a proper appUcatiou of mmd to the reply subinitted by the petitioner, therefore, the iinpugned order is non-speaking order and is liable to be quashed. In the resiilt, fhe petition is allowed iu part. The impugned order 03.02.2010 is quashed with a liberty to the Director General of Police to pass a fresh order dealtng with the reply subinitted by the petitioner to show cause. No order as to cost. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Rao