S. P. SRIVASTAVA, K. N. SINHA, JJ.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.

( 2 ) PERUSED the record.

( 3 ) TAKING into consideration the nature of the controversy raised In this case, the learned standing counsel states that no counter-affidavit is proposed to be filed.

( 4 ) THE only submission urged and pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition is that even though this Court vide the order dated 4. 3. 2002, disposing of the writ Petition No. 9320 of 2002 filed by the petitioner had clearly directed the concerned respondent to give a decision disposing of the representation of the petitioner, yet the said authority vide the impugned order dated 21. 5. 2002 has disposed of the representation giving conclusions only without assigning any reason in support of the aforesaid conclusions. It is also urged that while indicating the total liability of the petitioner to be 1327. 70 qntls. including Arwa and Sela rice, in the representation dated 21. 1. 2002, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-14 to the writ petition, it was clearly asserted that the petitioner wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document