aw / IN THE E33}! COWRT OE NEICATvRE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPgR ‘ / $145M»; 1933/2ae1 Smt. saroj Mishra. 13/0 Ehan $a1 Mishra,‘: Ageé alwut 4Q years, Presid’lent. Priyaiirshani Mahila Prathmik Sahkar; vpbhakta nh‘anhr, K¢ta ward Nuz, ’Raipur Eistt. Raiyur (CG) PETITIQNER 1) Feed officer, Foo£ 3%ehaartment, Raiiwr. 2) meputy Kegistrar. Cooperative' $ocieties. Raipur. 1M stt. Raigmr (CE) 3) The wmissionér; Municigsal cbrgera‘tion,‘ Rai@ur ' (CG) ¢ 4» GE‘ THE CONSTITUTEONV WRIT FETITxGN3R UNI9-1m ARTICLE 2 i mimnm ’ \ /- <‘ VERSUS 7 2 “My @éygm um zze’em 6M!) W (exgWM @in‘87& &A<€r M597 W Méww carafwwwg , gawk! M > W m Smg!e Bench cu v) Jaw/«2% ‘ ‘ WFW KW @wa; mxwx%aa kw; $0mw£am XI—HC-22 WEI wwww‘q‘faém Wagfw mmmsm‘ga \ éHaTWW 18.10.200l Heard Shri P.9iwakar, \ learned counsel for the petitioner , Shri Gautam Bhaduri , ‘ lear’ned Gover nme nt )AHdvo'cvat‘e ~ prays for seven days" time to obtain instructions and to verify certain doeugegts ' ’«I The matter relates to issuance of monthly ropd‘quo‘taK \receivable by the petitioner, The grieVanceaof the writ! a petitioner is that though \ she is entitled to receiye . Cafe. §\_ A \ E‘@ préé‘ the Wthe quota, :suclk, quota has been reduced swifthogg any reason by the ‘Fo‘od Office”. In£act on 15.2}1999 the matteé net was exhaustively considered ‘ .sm Le by the Registrar and he cams to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to 1 m3 eh! x w 1 [a g ’WW(W§WX WWW M quota. Shri P .Diwakar mmw 'I‘ 1 ‘ ‘7‘ v submits that tins statement has been supported by an { affidavit. It is also further submittéd’tha‘t the, sa’id‘ord'er‘ ,issued by ’t‘he Registrar on 30 11 1999 has not been appealed agaJi'x’st Hence it is submitted tha ih" a the' s’aid order has ‘a‘tta ‘ inality. Insupp‘or‘‘t of ‘ this contention‘ Shr’i T’P J Diwakar has drawn fnyv’ atté é, .‘ V 'tion to anoth‘ei‘oxéef " An‘nexu‘re A38 dated“2’sl.9.2o‘r‘ issued by“ thegDepult‘y’“ Reg‘ at‘r’ar stat‘ingi’thaé the matter“ had been decided by the Registrar asiearly as o gEg quota to the wrlt petltio er. order dated 28 9 2001 was issued to the Food Offic " ‘ e by the Deputy Registrar “t GRPRI-FS/31 151/200 l~—50,000, (Contd. . ) m ‘ f ~ n : XI—HC-22 ainw m r z w p No.1933/2001 W . ......................................a 209 Mm 111%? wwwafwm (Contd. order<dated 18.10.2001) -: B :- caomply issued the Registrar on with the order issued by 30.11.1999. A In my yiew', this ‘document clearly shoqs that there is no dispute as regards the entitlement of the writ petltioner tc receive eed quota as stated in the v aforesaid two orders. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to‘ grant further time as prayed for by Shri’GautamrBhaduri. >In my View, the matter is a abundantly clear. In the result. this petition is diSposed of ‘with the direction that respondent No.1 shall comply With the orders issued on 30.1l 1999 by the Registrar as well as the subsequent order issued on 28.9.200l by ‘the Deputy‘Registrar . 33/- K Office : Mitra Vihar, Behind Vandana Motors, Link RoadxBilaspur (C.G.) Ph. : 07752 - 61416