Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Pragya Kadam

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 238 of 2017

1. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Through The Chairman, Hitwad Parisar, Avanti Vihar Colony, Head Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Hitwad Parisar, Avanti Vihar Colony, Head Office, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Appellants

Versus

1. Pragya Kadam D/o Shri Gopal Rao Kadam, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Behind House Of Dr. Khetrapal, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. The Secretary, Food And Civil Supples, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Deputy Director, Food And Civil Supplies, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ----Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate For Caveator : Shri RS Baghel, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Judgment on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan , Chief Justice 27.07.2017 1) This writ appeal by the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited is against the judgment issued in the writ petition filed by the respondents herein. The writ petitioner had

wa 238 of 2017 sought for an order quashing Annexure-A/1 impugned in the writ petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal- 433 of 2016 and connected matters. It is not in dispute that the said judgment dated 09.11.2016 was carried by the establishment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordships had dismissed the Special Leave Petition. It was also not disputed before the learned Single Judge that the issue in hand is covered by the said judgment in Writ Appeal- 433 of 2016. It was accordingly that the learned Single Judge had ordered the Writ Petition in terms of the judgment in Writ Appeal- 433 of 2016 and connected matters by directing that the writ petitioner would be entitled to the same benefit after verification necessary facts. We do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment at the instance of the appellant- Corporation. Therefore, this Writ Appeal fails.

2) In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Chief Justice Judge padma