Tikripara Mahila Swa Sahatya Samuh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3043 of 2017 Tikripara Mahila Swa Sahatya Samuh (A Society Registered Under The Provisions Of The Chhattisgarh Society Restrikan Adhiniyam 1973) Having Its Office At Gram Panchayat, Kirrari, Tahsil Akalatara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh Through Its President Umeshwari Kashyap W/o Kedar Kashyap Aged 39 Years R/o Village Kirrari, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supplies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

3. Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

4. Ma Gayatri Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Gram Panchayat Kirrari, Tahsil Akalatara, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh, Through Its President / Secretary, Ma Gayatri Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Gram Panchayat Kirrari, Tahsil Akalatara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 14/11/17 1.

By order dated 25.10.2016 the respondent No. 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir Champa has cancelled the allotment of shop to the petitioner against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 who has allowed the appeal in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter back to respondent No. 3, but the respondent No. 3 by impugned order dated 08.08.2017 has alloted the shop to respondent No.

4, being aggrieved against which this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law as the petitioner's case has not been considered while passing the order and, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order with utmost circumspection.

4.

Be that as it may, the respondent No. 3- Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir Champa is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's case strictly in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner would also be at liberty to file an application for staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 before the SubDivisional Officer (R). 4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka