Deepak Kumar Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.

1. Deepak Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Satram Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Umarda, Post- Parkhanda, Tahsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

2. Bimla Chandrakar W/o Late Shri Santram Chandrakar Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Umarda, Post- Parkhanda, Tahsil- Kurud, DistrictDhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Director Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Collector Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

5. Food Officer District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

6. Branch Manager Vrihatakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Sansta Maryadit, Gadadih, Reg. No. 755, Tahsil - Kurud District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

7. Komal Sahu S/o Kamrai Aged About 32 Years Computer Operator Vrihatakar Krishi Sakh Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Gadadih, Reg. No. 755, Tahsil - Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18/02/2020

1. The limited grievance that the petitioners have in the present writ petition is that the third installment of selling of paddy, which the petitioners were entitled for, have been refused on account of the mistake caused by the Operator in the Food Department under the respondents.

2. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the Food Officer vide his memo dated 14.02.2020 has clearly instructed the authorities to take appropriate steps for issuance of a fresh token enabling the petitioners to sell their third installment of paddy.

3. The petitioners have rushed to the Court for an appropriate relief taken into consideration the limited period left for the sale of paddy. So far as the issuance of the memo dated 14.02.2020 is concerned, the State Counsel would submit that appropriate steps shall be taken at the earliest.

4. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No.5 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner tomorrow i.e. on the 19th of February, 2020 itself considering the short period of time left keeping in view the directives given by the Food Officer dated 14.02.2020 and steps also be taken for ensuring that the petitioners do not face any difficulties in selling their paddy, so far as the sale of third installment is concerned.

5. State counsel is also directed to intimate the concerned authorities, so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

7. Certified copy today.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved