1 2025:CGHC:16734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1768 of 2022 1 - Jai Maa Laxmi Swa Sahayata Samuh, Ghotiya Through Its President, Smt. Saroj Bai Barle Aged About 39 Years, W/o Jagmohan Barle, R/o Village Ghotiya, Tahsil Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Collector, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Collector, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Ms. Zainab Vanak Advocate For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.16 10:57:39 +0530 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 09.04.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order Dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent Additional Collector, Kawardha, C.G. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ writ(s) in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner preferred has WP(C) No. 970 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order 22.02.2021, directing the petitioner to file appeal under the provision of Clause 18 of the P.D.S. Control Order 2016. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, but the same has been decided by the Additional Collector by the impugned order. It is stated that the Additional Collector does not have any authority to pass the order and thus the order is illegal. 3. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that according to Section 2G of the Control Order, 2016 in the definition of Collector, the Additional Collector and other officers sub-ordinate are included. Therefore, the impugned order passed is under that authority. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 5. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits of this case, this petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to approach before the concerned authorites i.e. the State Government against the order passed by the Additional Collector by filing an appropriate appeal within a period of 20 working days and the concerned authority, in turn, is directed to consider and decide the same within a further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the said application, in accordance with law. 6. Since, this Court vide its order dated 13.04.2022 has passed an order of status quo, the same shall be maintained till 60 days from the filing of appeal. 7. With this observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha