Subhash Sarkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.

1. Subhash Sarkar S/o Late Shri Purnchand Sarkar Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

2. Manish Sarkar S/o Shri Subhash Sarkar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil - Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Post Office Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002.

2. The Collector (Food Officer) Composite District Office Building, First Floor, Chamber No. 80/81, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Nodal Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

5. The Tahsildar Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G. and Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/12/2019

1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that for the last two years, the petitioners have been running from pillar and post for getting the name of the petitioners registered with the respondents for the purpose of selling their paddy under the "Paddy Procurement Scheme at MSP".

2. On the previous date of hearing the counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instructions and the matter was ordered to be listed

today. Today when the matter is listed, the counsel for the respondents submits that the name of the petitioner No.1 could not be registered as the said land against which he is seeking registration was in fact lease for the cultivation of Makka. Similarly, so far as the case of the petitioner No.2 is concerned, the counsel for the respondents submits that the land in which the petitioner No.2 was seeking registration has some disputes, which is pending consideration before the respondent No.5, but all the submissions, which the counsel for the respondents submits have not been officially communicated to the petitioners, neither have they been intimated any reasons, so far as their applications for registration not being entertained.

3. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition itself stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to immediately consider the case of the petitioners on merits and pass an appropriate order within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, intimating the petitioners why the petitioners' case cannot be registered, if at all, if there is any ineligibility on the part of the petitioners.

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

5. Certified copy today.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved