Yashwant Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 2733 of 2020 Yashwant Kumar S/o Shri Shant Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Sarwani, Tahsil And P. S. Kharsia, District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

2. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

3. The Tahsildar, Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06.11.2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner is the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not deciding the application which the petitioner has made for registering his name and permitting him for selling of paddy crops for this Kharif season.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner namely Shri Shant Kumar Jaiswal is the Sarwarakar of Shri Jagannath Swami Mahaprabhu temple situated at village Sarwani. The said temple has got certain agricultural land

situated in different Khasra numbers, the total area of which is 7.818 hectares. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father had submitted an application seeking registration of his name for the purposes of selling paddy in the registered society i.e. Cooperative Society at Bargarh as per the guidelines and policies of the State Govt. which requires registration for the purpose of selling of paddy. He submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that though the application is pending consideration for long, the same has not been decided by the respondents.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the petition has been filed by the son of the Sarwarakar and it is the Sarwarakar who is the competent person to have moved the application and his application would be considered purely in accordance with the policy governing the field.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be disposed of directing the respondents to decide the application that the petitioner's father had moved, in accordance with the policy.

5. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the records and also considering the short period of time left for registration for the purpose of selling paddy, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner's father for registration as is required for the purpose of selling of paddy crops. It is expected that the respondent authorities shall take a decision before the last date that as of now is 10.11.2020. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the authorities so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. The state counsel is also directed to intimate the authorities in this regard.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai