1 2025:CGHC:19940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1932 of 2025 1 - Mahila Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Dukan Mauharpara Through Its Manager Biharilal Patwar S/o Lt. Sh. Babli Ram Patwar, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Mauharpara Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplied And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 - Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramnath Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Sarowar Marg, Opposite Akash Apartment Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 5 - Jai Ambe Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Through Its Manager/proprietor Smt. Shushma Singh W/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Mauharpara Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.24 16:25:09 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate For State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the order passed by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer, it seems that the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) has not followed the provisions contained in the Public Distribution System Order, 2016, which envisages proper procedure while giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. Though the petitioner has approached before the Collector in an appeal, but, the said order of the Sub Divisional OfÏcer has been confirmed in the appeal. 2. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since the petitioner has approached before the concerned Collector, as such the order passed by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer has attained finality and, therefore, further appeal lies before the Divisional Commissioner, which the petitioner has to approach. 3. Learned counsel for the State further submits that there is alternative remedy available under the law as per the Public Distribution System Order, 2016. There lies an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the order of the Collector as per recent amendment dated 17.4.2025. 3 4. Since there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the law, as such the petitioner is directed to approach before the appropriate authority concerned and in turn the concerned authority is directed to decide the case of the petitioner on its merits in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh