1 2025:CGHC:54190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4749 of 2025 1. Parveen Bano W/o Hafiz Firoz Ahmed Aged About 53 Years Proprietor - M/s Aqsa Rice Mill, Belbehra, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), R/o- Opp. Minakshi Printing Press, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consuler Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Directorate Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G. 3. Collector District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 “10.1. Call for the original note sheets/record of the Respondent in respect of imposing penalty on the petitioner. 10.2. set-aside/ quash the impugned orders dated 13.11.2024 and 15.07.2025 (Annexures P-1 & P-14), passed by the Respondent No.3 & 2 respectively. 10.3. impose appropriate cost upon the Respondents for the malicious and arbitrary action taken against the Petitioner and causing it severe loss and hardship. 10.4. Any other relief (s), direction (s), which Hon’ble the Court deems fit, and proper along with cost, in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not pressing relief for quashment of order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 because in that order the bar for registration of petitioner as a rice miller on the ground of blacklisting was only for Khariff Season 2024- 25, which has already expired. He, however, submits that petitioner submitted an application dated 9.6.2025 (Annexure P-12) before respondent No.3 requesting for removal of name of petitioner’s rice mill from blacklisted rice millers on the ground that period of blacklisting of petitioner is already over. He further submitted that from the tenor of order dated 13.11.2024 it is apparent that the Competent Authority has clearly mentioned that, name of petitioner’s rice mill be kept in blacklist and her rice mill will not be registered for procurement of government paddy for the year 2024-25. He 3 also pointed out that the period of blacklisting mentioned in the order dated 13.11.2024 reflects Khariff Season 2024-25 because registration for procurement of paddy and agreement for custom milling rice is done every year. He further submits that on 9.6.2025 petitioner submitted an application before the Collector for removal of name of her rice mill from blacklist, who, in turn, forwarded her application to respondent No.2- Director, Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Nawa Raipur. However, till date no decision on that application is taken by competent authoritites. He submits that during pendency of petition, respondent No.1 issued letter dated 23.10.2025 directing all the Divisional Commissioners and District Collectors to initiate proceeding for registration of rice millers for purpose of custom milling of paddy to be purchased under the procurement system of the State Government. This letter specifies last date for submission of application by interested rice millers as 31.10.2025. Petitioner could not submit application for registration of her rice mill, only because, there was an order of blacklisting and application for removing of name of her rice mill from blacklist is still pending consideration before the Collector, who forwarded it to the respondent No.2. He further submits that there cannot be blacklisting for endless period. Penalty, if any imposed, is to be for specific period. As per 4 order, Anenxure P-1, it is reflecting that respondent No.3 has specifically directed not to register rice mill of petitioner for custom milling only for the year 2024-25, which means period of blacklisting is of one year. Respondent No.3 sought guidance from respondent No.2 on the application of petitioner for removal of her rice mill from blacklist. Respondent No.2 vide Annexure P-14 directed for initiating proceeding to initiate proceeding as provided under Clause-9 of the Control Order 2016. Whereas, respondent No.3 vide order, Annexure P-1, has already considered and passed the order under Control Order of 2016 taking note of Clause-9 therein and blacklisted petitioner’s rice mill for a period of one year i.e. for the year 2024-25. 3. He submits that competent authority i.e. respondent No.2 and 3, are not taking decision on the application submitted by petitioner for removal of name of her rice mill from blacklist rice millers and only forwarding application from one table to another, therefore, a direction be issued to respondent NO.2 and 3 to take decision on the application submitted by petitioner on 9.6.2025 (Annexure P-12) in accordance with law expeditiously. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as learned counsel for petitioner is not pressing part of relied sought under Clause 10 (i) on the order 5 dated 23.11.2024 and only seeking a direction to respondent No.2 and 3 to take decision on the application of petitioner dated 9.6.2025 (Annexure P-12), he is having no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available in writ petition. 6. Petitioner, at this stage, though challenged the order dated 13.11.2024, Annexure P-1, is not pressing petition for relief of setting aside of order Annexure P-1. Grievance raised by petitioner at this stage is that even after completion of period of blacklisting as mentioned in the order Annexure P-1 i.e. season 2024-25, no decision is being taken on the application submitted by petitioner for re-registration as a rice miller for custom milling of government paddy. Application is dated 9.6.2025 which is annexed as Annexure P-12. Letter dated 13.6.2025 written by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 would show that there is clear mention that based on the proceeding initiated against petitioner of imposing penalty under Clause-9 of the Control Order of 2016, registration of petitioner’s rice mill was not done for Khariff Season 2024-25. Upon expiry of period of one year, petitioner submitted an application for removal of name of her rice mill from the blacklist. Letter, Annexure P-14, of respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 would show that respondent No.2 has not 6 considered the contents of letter of Annexure P-13 written by respondent No.3 clearly mentioning that penalty was already imposed under Clause-9 of the Control Order, 2016 and petitioner was not registered for Khariff Season 2024-25, and advised respondent No.3 to initiate proceeding under Clause- 9, and therefore, it appears that respondent No.2 has not considered the letter in its entirety and has escaped consideration of fact that the Collector has already taken action against petitioner under Clause-9 of the Control Order of 2016. 7. Considering the facts of case, particularly that the order of blacklisting dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector clearly mentions that petitioner be not registered for the year 2024-25, meaning thereby for a period of one year and further considering that there cannot be an order of blacklisting against any person for indefinite period, respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to consider and decide application of petitioner dated 9.6.2025 (Annexure P-12) afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, keeping in mind the above observation and contents of the order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) wherein there is specific order of the Collector for non-registration of petitioner 7 for kharif season 2024-25, which has already come to an end, and Khariff Season 2025-2026 is started. 8. Certified copy as per rule. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-