1 2025:CGHC:31248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1139 of 2019 1 - Seva Sahkari Samiti Kosa Through Its Branch Manager Smt. Swarna Singh W/o Lakhendra Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Semariya, Post Kosa, Tahsil Pamgarh, Disrtict- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Consumer Affairs, Food And Public Distribution, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Janjgir-Champa, Disrtict- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ekta Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Kosa (Chhedoliya), Through Its President, Block Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a self-help group which was allotted two fair price shops run by respondent No.4, and one Santoshi Mahila Swa Shayat Samooh was placed under suspension and handed over to the petitioner group vide order dated 17.6.2016. On 21.7.2016, the Food Inspector submitted a report before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pamgarh regarding the physical stock available with the group. Respondent No.4 and Santoshi Mahila Swa Shayat Samooh filed an appeal before the Collector and vide orders dated 30.10.2017 & 17.6.2016, the earlier orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh to decide afresh. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh subsequently quashed the order dated 17.6.2016 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties. 3 3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 1.2.2018 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector along with an application for condonation of delay on 22.6.2018. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2018 on the ground that the appeal was barred by 47 days delay, and the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also rejected. The petitioner preferred a second appeal before respondent No.1/State, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.1.2019. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Collector and respondent No.1 committed an error of law in dismissing the appeal. She would further submit that the Collector ought to have taken a liberal approach while entertaining the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. She would also submit that the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had sufficiently explained the grounds for the condonation of delay, which were not properly considered. She would pray to quash the order passed by the Collector as well as respondent No.1. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that there is no provision for condonation of -4- delay in the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. According to Section 18 of the Control (Order), 2016, the order passed by the State Government is final. They would further submit that since no provision exists for the condonation of delay, the application moved by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not maintainable. Therefore, they contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016, reads as under:- “18. Appeal.— (1) Any person aggrieved by any order of designated officer, denying the allotment of Fair Price Shop, issue or renewal of a ration card or cancellation of the ration card, may appeal to the Collector/ Additional Collector within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may appeal to the State Government within a period of 30 days of receipt of the order and its decision shall be final. (3) No such appeal shall be disposed off unless the aggrieved person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) During the pendency of an appeal, the appellate authority may direct that the order under appeal shall not take into effect for such period as the authority may consider necessary for giving a reasonable opportunity to the other party under sub-rule (3) or until the appeal is disposed off, whichever is earlier.” 8. A bare reading of Section 18 of the Control (Order), 2016 would 5 make it clear that the Limitation Act is not applicable. The Control (Order), 2016 does not confer the Appellate Authority with the power to condone the delay, nor does it provide for the application of the Limitation Act. 9. In the present case, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) before the Collector with a delay of 47 days. An application for condonation of delay was submitted but was rejected by the concerned Collector. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by respondent No.1. 10. Since the Control (Order), 2016 contains no provision regarding the condonation of delay, the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application moved by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi