wtm ® /, CF ’ WC //’ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION No. ‘10 7972006 PETITIONER g’Raju Lal, son of Late Shri Shivan Saw, aged about 41 years, resident of Contractor Colony, Bhilal, Distt. Durg (co) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, / through — the Secretary, Civil Supply and Food Department, Dau Kalyan 'Singh Bhawan, Raipur L0G.) 2. The Food Controller, Department of Food 85 Civil Supply, Distt, Durg‘ (C.G.) 3. The District Collector, District Durg (CG) The Food Inspector, District Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The Petitioner, named above, respectfully submits as under: — § XI—HC-78 33W, m,W :4v..o.-.é/.9.>;a/q;6 . kw? WW W 200 Wm (W) mam azl‘anéam matmm WW§WW aawanéw 22.08.209& Shri T.K. Tiwari, ieamec petitioner. Nctice re-ruie. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, notice for the Siam of Chhattisgarh With the conseni of ieam parties, the petition was heard finaii Common order passed in W signed and dated. counsei fOf the earned GA. takes ed counsel for the y‘. .P. No.4071 of 2005, Sdl- Chief Justice P.T.O. HEGH CO’JR'F QF JUD§CATURE CHHAT'HSGARH : BILASPUR S§NGLE BENCH : HQNBLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, Ca}. ?ET!T§$N§R Vs. REEPONDENTS 1. ug E???EQNER §E$P$NEENTS 1‘ Madan Yadav, son of Dhani Yadav, aged about 5O years, resiésnt cf New Khursipar, D§$tt. Burg (03.) sia'ie of Chhattisgarh, Through — the Secretary, Civi! Supphy and Food Department, Dau Kaiyan Sfngh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Food Sentrolier, Depaftmem of Food & CivEi Suppiy, Distt. Durg (CG) The Distrid Collecior, Districi‘ Burg (CG) The Food lnspector, District Durg (CG) Raju Lai, son of Laié 3W Shwar} Sac, aged about 41 years, resident of Qonira'ctor Colony, Bhilai, Disft. Burg (CG) Siato of Chhaftisgarh, Through —- the Secre$ary‘ Civil $uppiy ané Fooof Depaifment, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Department of Food & Civi: Suppiy‘ Dgséi. Burg (0G,) The Disi’rici Coiiecior, Disirict Burg (CG) The Food inspector, Dismet Burg (CG) The Food Controiler, 3. 4. PETH‘IQMER V3 RE5PON§EN$S i. W§ET FET§T§GN N0. 4QY3 a? 2QD33 Mohd Seyeed, son of Mohd Jahur, aged about 5O years, resident of Khertha Bhiras‘, Déstt. Burg {C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - rhe Secreiary, Cir/ES Suppiy and Food Bepartment, Dau Kagyan Singh Bhawan, Rarpur (6.6.) WRH' PETIT‘IGN N0. 4g?’i GF 2%as WRTT PETmGr‘é NQ. 4872 OF 2QO$ 2. The Fwd Controiier, Department cf Food & CM! SuppEy, Distt. Burg (C3,) 3. The District Coliector, 3$ years, resident of Near Gayatri Mandfr, Khmséper‘ Distr. Burg (C.G.) RESPGNaEN‘i‘S 1. Stare of Chhari‘rsgarh, Through - the Secretary, CM $upp§y and Fcod Department, Dau Kaiyen Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Food Contreiier, Department of Foocf & Civi§ SuppEy, Disii Durg (CG) 3. The District Coriector, District Burg {CG} The Feed inspector, Disiriet Burg (CG) ‘vs. g§resent : Shri TK. Tiwari, ieamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, iearned GA. for the State/respondents. QRI—‘tL GRDER (Passed on 22““ August, 2006) Aii the writ petitions deserve to be aiiowed on a short ground. The petétioners are iicence hoiciers under the C‘nhatiisgarh Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 197Q (for short ‘the Licensing Order’). it is stated that the Food Controiier, Department of Food & Civii $uppiies, District Burg, the second respondent herein, in each of these writ petitions, without issuing any notice to the petitioners has suspended the iioences granted to them. These writ petitions ate fiied compiaining that the impugned orders passed by the second respondent are vioiative of mandatory 'orovision of the proviso to Ciause 1O of Licencing Order. The proviso to iause 10 provides that no order of canceiiation or suspension of licence District Burg (CG) 4. The Food mspecton District Durg (CG) W§§T PETiTwN NO. 4074 GF 26% PE?§?H@NE§ Mukhtar, son cf Shatir Aii, aged about 3\ shau be made under Ciause 10 uniess the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity cf stating his case against the proposed canceHation or suspension, as the case may be Thefefore, the impugned suspension ordei's cannot be sustained in iaw. (2) In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order in each of these writ petitions is quashed. However, this order shall not come in the way of the second respondent from passing appropriate order after notice to the petitioners and giving them opportunity of being heard. Sdl- Chief Justice