High Court Karnataka High Court

The Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara … vs The Union Of India Represented By … on 8 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara … vs The Union Of India Represented By … on 8 March, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 8'?" DAY OF MARCH. 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICILQAJITJ' T'  

WRIT PETITION NO.80752;IOIr,2OI0";CM}RI>DS}-T.._"*

BETWEEN

THE MAHATMA GANDHI
SAHAKARA SAKKARE  H

KARKHANE (N),  ~

BHALKI _-- 585 328,

BIDAR DIS'I'RICT,__ '   

       
REP. BYITS  "  "   I

MANA,CI'NO 

YS D13VDASAR4f"AII.I%'I    ~ ? ...PETITIONER

(BY SR1  MIAJAGE &
sRI_I\/OI P SUB_BAL/AH,"-ADV.,]

  I .  INDIA

RI;I3Y' ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY. OF CONSUMER

 AFFAI.Rs, FOOD AND PUBLIC
~ ,  I DISTRIBUTION DIRECTORATE
- _  SUGAR, KRISHI BHAVAN,

f  NEWDELHI.



EU

2. THE CHIEF DIRECTOR (SUGAR),
GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF'
CONSUMER AFFAIRS.

FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
DIRECTORATE OF SUGAR.

KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.   

3. THE JOINT DERECTOR (sIIGAAR)é,'f" ~ '
GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRYOF ' *
CONSUMER AFFAIRS, A  '- I
FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
DIRECTORATE OF' sIIOAR,.------ _  
KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW"«.DEL1ri,T..  »  

4. THE DEPUTY ; 
GOVT. OF INDIA, ;v11N1sTRY 
CONsUMER'ATi:RAIRs, FOOD_"A_ND' 

PUBLIC I)1'STRIBU_TIO:1$ul,_v'   I

DIRECfIfORATE"«:;)_I? O1 
KRISHI B;%iA?.7AN NEW_D ELHII' . . .REsI>OND ENTS

[BY SMTL  ASGC)
 A A  

 This'I-writgjetitiion is filed under Articles 226 and

__ »   the_C--Onstituti0n of India, praying to issue a writ
I'  Of_s.mand.amu.s _).:1irec:ting the respondents to consider the

1*epresent_2ItiOn at Annexure M dated 23.2.10 and permit
the petitioner to sell the 2,00,000 quintais of free sale
sugar by issuing release Orders forthwith and etC.,

A  This petition coming on for preliminary hearing

 this.T'day, the Court made the foliowingz



L2.)

ORDER

Smt. Archana Tiwari, ASGC is directed p.tt’o:>t.;1ke

notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a s’iigai”«fa’ctor3t;V:” is
established In the year 1991. Ithiéconinqencetiip

in the year 2003.

3. Grievance of}”‘–the, that as of now
there is an excess stock::”:of” fifee sa1:e”»”‘sugar with the
petitioner’s.~feactofi%y;;. t}.1e:f.’ci:ci.itnstance compelled
them Zlto -give””‘:a;f-.,t’epi*es:e’nctation dated 23.02.2010 for

release oi”._tWo “r;iV:i:;_I;inta1s of free sale sugar by a

– release order. copy of which is produced at Annexure

of the petitioner is that the said

repfesenté.iio.f1 is not considered. Hence this writ

V V’ pp ‘ . petition}: V i /1

4. In identical matter this Court has issiied a

direction to the respondents to consider

representation expeditiously. There is no reason’for

to take a different View than the__one_ 2 ‘

in the eariier writ petition. Hence the “io1loVv_Aingv
oRfifig_V

The respondent -consider the

representation.:at..An§fie§tiir:e 23.2.2010 with an

outer limit ‘of date of receipt of this

Petitiori disjiiosed of accordingly.

S1i1t.V’t;4Xrchana”Tiwari, ASGC is permitted to file her

i-nierrio ofvappearance within four weeks.

a safe
EUDGE