1 2025:CGHC:9844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1064 of 2025 1 - Suman Roy S/o Sunit Roy Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pakhanjoor, Tehsil- Pakhanjoor, P.S. - Paknanjoor, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Department Of Agriculture Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipdan Board, Sector-24, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Kanker District- North Bastar Kanker C.G. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Pakhanjoor Sub-Division- Pakhanjoor, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Tehsildar Pakhanjoor, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 6 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pakhanjoor, Through- Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pakhanjoor, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA For Resp No. 2 & 6 : Mr. Y.S. Thakur (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 27/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16/12/2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.2/Managing RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.02.28 10:32:53 +0530 2 Director in pursuance to the reference made by the Secretary/Respondent No. 1 in an appeal filed under Section 16 (3) read with Section 34 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam, 1972’) wherein the petitioner has questioned the order dated 11/01/2023 passed by the Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Krishi Vipdan Board. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the appeal has been filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 to question the order of respondent No.2/Managing Director, but without hearing the appeal, respondent No.1 referred the same to the Managing Director/respondent No.2 to decide the same, who after examining his own order dated 11/01/2023 in appeal, passed the order impugned dated 16/12/2024, which is not permissible under the law. 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 2 & 6 submit that though the appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Secretary/respondent No.1, but on the reference made by respondent No. 1, Managing Director/ respondent No.2 heard the appeal and passed the order impugned dated 16/12/2024 (Annexure-P/1). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal (Annexure-P/12) filed before the Secretary under Section 16 (3) read with Section 34 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1972. 5. Perusal of the appeal (Annexure-P/12) would show that in the said appeal, the petitioner had questioned the order dated 11/01/2023 passed by the Managing Director/respondent/respondent No.2, however, the 3 Secretary/respondent No.1 without hearing the said appeal has forwarded the same to the Managing Director/respondent No.2 whose order itself was under challenge in the appeal. Therefore, the Managing Director/respondent No. 2 cannot hear the appeal by re-examining his own order dated 11/01/2023. 6. Hence, the order impugned dated 16/12/2024 (Annexure-P/1) is quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1/Secretary for afresh hearing of the appeal (Annexure-P/12). Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law. Consequently, the execution of RRC (Revenue Recovery Certificate) issued by the Tehsildar in respect of the petitioner shall remained stayed till the decision of petitioner’s appeal. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul