High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 07 CHH CK 0053

Kaushal Kumar Singh vs State of C.G. and Others

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 27 July 2012 · Citation: (2012) 4 CGLJ 249

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.P. Sharma, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 1065 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 377 words

Hon''ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J.—By this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for following relief:--

(i) That the Respondents be directed to not to implement the oral orders and the petitioner be permitted to carry on his job as usual.

(ii) That Respondents be further directed to classify the items purchased and sold by the petitioner as illegal or legal items to facilitate the petitioner to carry out the business and per the wishes of the respondents.

(iii) Any other relief deemed justified in the circumstances of the case be also granted.

(iv) Cost of the petition be also granted in favour of the petition.

Copy of documents perused. As per claim of petition, petitioner is scrap dealer and running his business in Vaishali Nagar, P.S. Supela, Bhilai, Distt-Durg, but respondent were not permitting him to run his business, respondent No. 3 has orally directed to the respondent No. 2 and 4 to close the business. Petitioner has fundamental right to run business without any interruption by any authority.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is running scrap dealer business since last 20 years but respondent No. 4 vide its oral order has created obstruction in his business, his articles has been seized without any justification and respondent No. 2 to 4 are creating hindrance in the business of present petitioner.

3.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that respondent have never obstructed/stopped/interrupted the business of petitioner, but petitioner is in habit of possessioning stolen article. Several time stolen article, railway property have been found in possession of the petitioner. Therefore in case of commission of offence by petitioner, respondents are under obligation to investigate the offence and search the premises of petitioner dealing with the business of scrap dealer.

4.

Fundamental right to run business/provision of business cannot be obstructed/interrupted/violated by any of the authority, but respondent cannot be debarred from investigation of the offence or taking steps in accordance with law. Consequently, petition disposed of with following directions that respondents shall not obstruct or stopped the business of petitioner but they may investigate the offence if committed by petitioner in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.