^ IN THB HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ^6.9.) WRIT PBTITION NO*^^^ OF 2.001 BET1'®BN Safe Guard^ a proprietorship concern, th-cov.gh Proprietor'G.P',»Singh S/o Raj Mani Singh, aged 36 years, resident of 101 Ar^hna Nagar^ Bhopal^ ^•-s^s^ ^'.^s^ PSTITIONSR '&JLS. !• 2. 3,: ^4. Chhafcfcisgarh State Agricultural Markefcing Board^ through its Managing Director^ Raipur *• Deputy Director of Raipur Division of Chha-fctisgarh S-fcate j^ricultural Marketing Boardy Raipur^ Ghairman ,Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti/ Raipur, Secretary^ Krishi UpaJ Mandi Samiti ,Raipur« RE3POM5SNT3 WRIT' PSTI^TQ^ UI^:R_^lll!:^,^6/t^l OF-Jt^ CbNSTITUTION-OJF^.IN&.i^ '^3. -- XI-HC-22 ?, ^ftWR/'^ •3-S? W.P, N0.253/2001 13TO?iTW^i^"""""""T'";""""""""M -200.. 3Ti^?T'^T f^W^TT^T ^^^W^^T 03/04/2001 <» ^ ^' s " ^ + ^n^T^TaTO:^Ti^r Shri Prasbant Miahr4» learxied counse1 £or the petitioner, Shri Goutam Bhadurij respondents No»1 -and 2^ '^pfe^N ^w^i? ^ T^t TN"^R '^'Srf^m 3:TR^[ learned counsel for the The pe^ttion is €J-G4Ily Reard^ The petitioie r is a^grleved by Annexure'^p/l tjiader wlilc^ Be wa$ infor^a [tfaat^^ f of the security provision waa to Ktishl Upaj Mandi SamiCi^ira^ nof 3;n neecl of further o^ secur;lty,wi€h effeet from ^9/02/20©t^th8 seeurity sysfem waa to abo^ah» The pe tJLtipner -submJ Annexure^P/2 an agreement w^s K±ishi UpaJ Mandi Satoitl an4 He submits that in accordan^e agr^ement, the agreenient cou] Ktisfi^T&paJ "IIS^dlT Becaust^ t$S Diree^r~^f"^he~Krlsh2;^paj 1; xpire shortly aad the •ts ,that in accordance with entered intQ between the the petitioner on 25/02/2000, with Clause<»9 of the said d not be terminated by the powers v€sfe 3in' Managing Mandl^ Shri tiiaduri 'on the jo€h.er''hanQ "submits that a perusaIFoI^ GonSil^in No^ 9"o^^ the agreement ^would show fchat^the agreement^^is for cj an authority "w&s given to t^ period of one year• though, ^e Managing Director to extend ^^ 3TS^T^RS^ ( ^rf^^T ) ^l^fei^fh' 1RPT^ff "^ f^'^T Tf^TRJ? Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti ir '3?pOT -^TI^ the period, He sutbmits ihat vide Anaexure-P/1 the dld not terminate the contract or uncereinoniafl.ly remove^f the petitioner from thetr premises, but simply inf^naed that the period was to end on 29/02/2001 an^'th^Krishi£Upaj Mahdi was no€ in need of any security ^uard. He submits that the petition is miscongeived^ , I hav®-bear-d fehe y^Wfi ^BQ pQ^^3^$} it appears tftat ^fehe saidi s< of the ligreement (Anne3aare^/2) agr^emenfc was A©remain in ^s^ ce for a pierlod pf OF yearj* ^ the said periQd was-ifeo^.expiffe on brA>efore29/Q2/2001, Under Armexure*p/lcthe respondpiat llirishl Upaj ^laadi Samiti did not termlnate the agreeiiiBnt before the^aate of its expiry but siraply inforrojed the petitioner that the agreement was to expire Upaj MaBdi Samiti was nc^ |bn 29/02/2001 and the said Krish3. niore i^ need 61 any secxirity systenu" Tfc^ orSer^ in'faJctTsaBinformatIonana ca^not be treatid to be an actljon^agairist the interest of the peti€io'ner^-uw" . j J..^.... . ..'-. - :.. . y" \The peti^l©nerj^a this Court paragraph 9 of the said agre^ a^nt s extended the peri©d for any that in accordanGe with the Managlng Director further time • T find nc^ reason to^ inter£ere<i petition on thia couod 4s dismissed< The GRPRJ—FS/.JI .i --.1/2001 —5:^:''on The respondents lare hereby direeted to se ttle ^he XI-HC-22 c. -5-^ •^IPTRTO, 'srftwT^/ f^ymy 'q^^ -m^rr %-tfl%"""""""""""""""""""^ 2()o '^^T' ^^T'^T f^W ^Tt^ ^TTp^ yrfl-cT V-^l 1. ^T^T ^cHW ^Tft^ (3) tfee th^ aecounts of th®petitiocer weeks from today and make respondeni®1s payable to dispute abouf the quantum o: petitloner then the/ eywbiap® petiti6ner.<()n<2 fbr recovery petitioner raay approach the C^C» today^ ^ithin a period of three payxaent which according to the petitioaer, If there is a the'itey^t to be paid to the ^imbunt may be paid t6 the of the rest o£ the aiootint the V Gompetenfe forum^ ^FT^T^ •WT^ff "^ f^-^ Tf^ZK "^'^R3Tr^T Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge ~^ ^> [TN^OT <^ ^^.^^