HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR y WRIT PETITION (Cl No.58 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Maa Vindhyawasini Gur Udyog, Village/Plot Sarangpur Kala, Block Bodla, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) through its proprietor Vivek Gupta, s/o Omkarswaroop Gupta, aged about 37 years, Resident of new Shantideep Colony, Ward No.21, Near Naveen Bazaar, Kawardha (Chhattisgarh) Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 2. Cane Commissioner, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Collector cum Chairman, Bhoramdev Cooperative Sugar Production Factory Limited, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). 4. Director Agriculture, Directorate (Agriculture), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Kachhawaha, Addl. Advocate General, for the State/ respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (08.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Petitioner Maa Vindhyawasini Gur Udyog, is running a Gur \ \ plant in Sarangpur Kala, Block Bodla, District Kabirdham. The ^ W.PCO. No.58/2010 said Concern is governed by Chhattisgarh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1958?). The Concern of the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P-9) passed by Cane Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur under section 17 of the Act, 1958 whereby the "No Objection Certificate?? issued in favour of the petitioner has been stayed by the Cane Commissioner. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the said order u/s 18 of the Act, 1958 on 13.10.2009 (Pg. 47 of the Paper Book) but no orders have been passed till date on the said appeal. He submits that even the date of hearing has not been fixed on the said appeal due to which the entire business of the petitioner is going to be collapsed. He also submits that since the crushing season of sugar cane is expiring, the impugned order passed u/s 17 of the Act is causing irreparable loss to the petitioner. However, he submits that in view of the fact that a statutory appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority u/s 18 of the Act, the concerned authority be directed to dispose of the appeal at the earliest so that the controversy raised on order dated 01.10.2009 passed u/s 17 of the Act, 1958 may come to an end. This limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by counsel for the State. However the State Counsel submits that a reasonable time may be granted so that the authority may expedite the hearing in accordance with the procedure laid down for disposal of the statutory appeal u/s 18. ^^^ W.P('O.No.58/2010 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be sen/red if the concerned authority is directed to dispose of the appeal at the earliest looking to the business season of the petitioner Concern and further looking to the fact that the appeal has been filed on 13.10.2009. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the concerned authority shall dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Deputy Advocate General shall be obliged to inform the concerned authority about the order passed by this Court in this writ petition. Apart from the above, the petitioner shall also be obliged to file a copy of this order alongwith the copy of the Paper Book before the concerned authority within a period of one week from today. C.c. as per rules. Sunil KumarSinha Judge