M/S Kansal Udyog Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:20566

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.05.05 19:58:29 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1006 of 2025

¶7

M/s Kansal Udyog Situated At Village Sangitarai, Khasra No. 322/1, 322/2, Sangitarai, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Through Its Proprietor Pawan Beriwal, Son Of Subhash Chandra Beriwal, Presently Aged About 42 Years, (Aadhar No. 7244 4114 0550), R/o Dani Para (Opposite Murari Hotel), Hatri Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Collector Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Upper Collector Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Food Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The Food Inspector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Through Its Managing Director, Office Address - 6th Floor, Tower C , Commercial Complex, CBD, Sector - 21, Block C , Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh.

¶16

7 - The District Marketing Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(Cause-title t	aken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent-State	: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General
For Respondents No.6 & 7	: Mr. Vikram Shrama, Advocate

¶19

2

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

05.05.2025

¶23

1 Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7.

¶24

2 The petitioner has filed instant petition with the following relief(s):-

¶25

“ 10.1 A writ and/or in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the Respondent authorities particularly the Respondent no.2 to immediately remit/refund the entire amount of encashed Bank Guarantee (Rs 3.60 Crore)of the Petitioner as encashed pursuant to order dated 21.10.2024, which has been set aside subsequently, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶26

10.2 In the alternative to above (I), a writ and/or an order in the nature of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 to act appropriately and decide upon the representations (Annexure P-7 to P-10) filed by the Petitioner, in accordance with law and to proceed thereupon and decide the matter, within a time bound manner, as directed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶27

3

¶28

10.3 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.

¶29

10.4 Cost of the proceedings may also be awarded. ”

¶30

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any particular order but is challenging the inaction and omission on the part of the respondent No.2 to refund/remit the encashed Bank Guarantee of Rs.3.60 Crore to the petitioner Firm, which has been encashed pursuant to the order dated 21.10.2024, which has been subsequently set aside by the order dated 09.01.2025.

¶31

4 Learned State counsel submits that the proceedings in respect of the grievance of the petitioner has already been initiated before the Collector, Raigarh and as such, two parallel proceedings are not run together, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the instant petition has been filed, only then the proceedings have been initiated before the Collector, Raigarh.

¶32

5 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has moved an application for interim relief before the Collecotr, as such, a direction may be issued to the Collector, Raigarh to decide his interim application within a short span.

¶33

6 Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has filed an interim application, the Collector, Raigarh is directed to consider and decide the interim application filed by the petitioner

¶34

4

¶35

within a period of 20 days from today. The Collector, Raigarh is further directed to consider the main case of the petitioner and to decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of 2 ½ months from the date of production of certified copy of this order

¶36

subject to co-operation by the petitioner.

¶37

7 With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Yogesh

M/S Kansal Udyog v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kansal Udyog v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Pal Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manharan Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Siddharth Tiwary Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwarlal Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukaro Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh