Disposed

Vipin Punjabi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2012WA/160/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the writ appeal filed by a gas connection holder challenging an order to verify gas connections. The court resolved the matter by having the State agree to verify the appellant's connection from existing documents.

What did the court decide?

The court disposed of the writ appeal as the State agreed to verify the connection from existing documents.

Vipin Punjabi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

^ 5

¶2

BEFORE THE HON?BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritAppealNo. []t) Of 2011 APPELLANT :: Vipin Punjabi, aged about 50 Petitioner years, S/o. Shri G.D.Punjabi, Occupation Advocacy R/o. Beladula, Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1) "Btate of Chhattisgarh through Respondents its Secretary, Department of Food 85 Civil Supply, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) '.^w<^' The Collector, Raigarh, District ^s^ Raigarh (C.G.) ..<4" ^'yy' ^^ ^' 1MCTPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 CLAUSE (110F THE ^CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DWISION BENCHl ACTRULES 2006.

^<br>

HI6H COURT OF CHHATriSeAftH AT BILASPUg

¶7

DivJsJon B@nch:

¶8

Hon'ble Dr. Justic®I.M. QuddusJ

¶9

¶10

Hon'bie Mr, Justice G. Minhajyddirs

¶11

WritADoeal No. 160/2011

¶12

^PPELL^NT: VipinPunjabi

¶13

Versus

¶14

RESPONDENTS: State of C.e. & another

¶15

AppeGrance:

¶16

The appellant in person.

¶17

Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate fieneral for the State/respondents.

¶18

ORAL OR&ER

¶19

<rh February. 2012)

¶20

P®rDr. I.AA.Qudduss. J.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The appellant has filed this writ appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25,2.2011 passed by the iearned Singie Judge in WP. (c) No,1093/11 dismissing the writ petition.

¶23

'JT

¶24

V;;

¶25

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is the holder of cooking gas connection which he had obtained under the Member of ParliGment Quota in the year 1996, The respondent No.2 by an undated order directed each and every gas connection card hoider of

¶26

•^.. ftaigarh city to get verify their gas connections< The said order of respondent No.2 WGS challenged by the appellcnt before the writ court on the ground that the same is unconstitutional because it suffers from arbitrariness, iliegatity and unconstitutionality. The iearned Single Judge vide order impugned dismissed the writ petition of the appeltant holding that it cannot be said that the order passed by the respondent No,2 is an order passed without jurisdiction.

¶27

We have heard learned counse! for the pQrties and perused the record.

¶28

¶29

5, The respondent-State have filed its return annexing a notification dated 23.12.2004 under which the Public Distribution Control Orders, 2004 have been framed. According to definition clause of the Orders, 2004, the 'public distribution system' means supply of essentid commodities through fair price shops to the consumers hoiding ration cards, and therefore, tiiese Orders are not applicable in respect of the tiquefied petroleum gas.

¶30

At this stage, ieamed Deputy Advocate (Seneral for the State has agreed that gas connection of the writ appellant cdn be verified from the documents already filed by him, to which the writ appeltant has no objection.

¶31

7, In view of above submissions, there remains nothing for this Court to

¶32

observe further.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dispo^sd of. A copy of this order

¶34

be supplied to learned State counsel today itsel-|

¶35

Sd/Dr. I.M.Quddusi Judge ftosi-

¶36

~] • •.

¶37

. . .

¶38

J SdA G. Minhajuddin Judge

¶39

Vipin Punjabi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Punjabi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salik Ram and Others Vs Mahan Singh and Others

Smt.Fudni Bai and Others Vs Anil Kumar Gupta and Others

Mohan Lal Sahu and 0RS Vs Saubhagyavati Bai and Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Lt. Vs Chandrika and Another

Bajaj Allianz General Insu.Co. Vs Sukhchand Patle and Ors.

Smt Samarin Bai and Another Vs Abdul Jahir and Anothr