f r^ IN THB HIGH COUBT S JUDIGA21URS AT'BILASPUR '(C.G.:> s,^ ;; WRIT PETITION N0,j>3'^ OF 2001 BSTi-iEEN Sunil,,.^aar^'S/G Shri Jaimaseeh Lakrayaged abou-t; 40 yearsfaTs^'-t, Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONER ...S'-bsfte o£ Ghha-fctisgarh, Throggh Seere-fcary, Coinnerelal 'Easc ISepartne nfc (Exeise) of Chhat-fcisgarK;' D.K.Bul3iding, Raipur« The CommissionaF ®£ Excise.,' Raipur'. Gollector ,'Raipur * M/s Sandsep Traders; e-25.1, Shailaidra Nagsr Chhugani Building,' Ralpiir. Mcf. Si.irji'b Singh Bhatia, Bine Con-ta-actQr, New Swapnl.ng Medical Shop,Katot-a Talab,Raipur. *»s ffnarji-t;_Singh, Opposite Mahakaushal Press, Ravi N^ar ^Raipur. 6'* RESPOHJ EHTS WRTI>:i>SlTItION_U ER_^TIGI^S_226^27._2P^^ GONSTlTUriON OF IHDIft ll': fj HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATriSGARH :BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'Bt-E SHRt H.L. DATTU, CJ. & . HON'BLESHRIV.K.SHRIVASTAVA.J. PETITIONER RESPQNDENT W.P.No.234o»2001 Sunll Lakra, GUIa^pur (C.G.) Vereus State of ChhatU^arh and othere. Present: Shri P Diwakar, leamedSr. AdvocatewithShriAdBM(nhaj counsd for the peUBoner. Shri PrashantMishra, Addl. A.G for ttie Stato cfC.G and its authoriUM. Shri A. Sinha and Shri G.S. Patelcounsel for reapondent No.5. Shri Sanjay S ^rawal, counsel for respondent No.6 ORALOFmER (Passedon 23rB February, 2007) The fotlowing oral order of the Court was pas»d by H.L.Dattu,CJ. ' The peUUoner was pradteing as a lawyer. The locus stancB <rf the petltioner in flNng this peUUon Is highly doubtfcit. Even then we do not Intond to expressany opinion on ttis aspect offte matler. (2) The only relief that is sought in ttils Publte Interest Lttigsrtion is to direct respondentNos.1 to 3 to fcrfett a suln of Rs5.75 crores saidto have been deposited by the respondent No.4 whlte participaBr^ in ttie auction in respect of Raipur group of sho[» for the period from 01.04^002to31-03-2001. —--, -s- (3) The service of notice of this petitionwas ordered to be issued and served on the respondent. They have also filed their return and also filed an applicadon for dismissal of the writ petttion. In ttie retum as well as in the application for dismissat of the petffion, they have categorically stated that^by not forfeiting the amount of Rs^.75 crores said to have been deposited by respondent No.4 the State Government has not suffered any loss whatsoever. The retum filed by u<, the respondents is on oath. We have no reason to believe the statement made in the reftjm filed by the respondents. Therefore, relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by us. Accordingly, the wr'rt petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. In the facts and cireumstance of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. (4) Registry is directed to refund the security deposft made by the petitioner, as early as possiblg. • Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge