RIZWAN MEMON (PROPRIETOR M/S RAJJU BHAI MEMON RICE INDUSTRIES) v. UNION OF INDIA
MCC/717/2025 · 2025-07-20
Shri Arvind Kumar Verma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31305 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 31305 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:34525
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 717 of 2025 1 - Rizwan Memon (Proprietor M/s Rajju Bhai Memon Rice Industries) S/o Abdul Razzak Memon Aged About 39 Years R/o R.K. Medical Stores, Main Road, Bindranawagarh, Dist- Gariyaband (C.G.) Firm's Address - Village- Ward No. 4, Office No. 1298, Village Dongarigaon Main Road, Bindranawagarh, Dist-Gariyanad (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Deputy Secretary, Ministry Of Consumer Affairs, Food And Public
Distribution,
Krishi
Bhawan
New
Delhi. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar District- Raipur
(C.G.) 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
Distt.
Raipur
(C.G.) 4 - C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 - Collector (Food Department) Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 6 - District Marketing Officer Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection,
Gariyaband,
District-Gariyaband
(C.G.) 7 - Food Corporation Of India (Fci) Regional Office- Mova, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 For Respondent No. 3 & : : : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
2 6 For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. R.S. Patel along with Mr. Ashish Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21/07/2025
1. None appears, nor is any representation on behalf of the petitioner in spite of the matter being called on two occasions.
2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE Madhurima