M/S Gauri Shankar Agrawal (Shri Gayatri Rice Mill) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2274 of 2021 M/s Gauri Shankar Agrawal (Shri Gayatri Rice Mill) Proprietor Gauri Shankar Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Sadhuram Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Baradwar, Ward No. 05, Nehru Chowk, Tehsil And P.S. Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Food Corporation Of India Through Its Managing Director, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.

3. Food Corporation Of India, Through Its Executive Director, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.

4. Food Corporation Of India Through Its General Manager (Region) Regional Office Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5. Collector Janjgir Champa (Food Supply), District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

6. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Sangh Maryadit, Through Managing Director, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

7. District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Sangh Maryadit, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

8. The District Manager Department Of Civil Supply Corporation, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

9. Divisional Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Division Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

10.Manager Food Corporation Of India, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner - Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For State - Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy.G.A.

For FCI - Shri B.P. Gupta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 15/06/2021 Heard.

1.

The relief claimed in this petition was to decide representation made to the

FCI.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue pertains to FRK i.e. fortified rice kernel which were to be mixed to make ordinary rice to make it high nutritional value and the petitioner having done the same, the fortified rice is not been accepted, therefore his representation may be decided. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondent/FCI would submit that representation has already been decided by letter dated 2/06/2021 which is already on record. 4.

Therefore, the representation having been decided and rejected, the petitioner may challenge the same in a properly constituted petition as according to the relief claimed in this petition, it appears to have become infructuous as on date. 5.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri