Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17181 (CHH)

SANKATMOCHAN PRATHMIK SAHKARI UPBHOKTA BHANDAR MARYADIT-AYODHYAPURI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/1841/2025 · 2025-04-09

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:16679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1841 of 2025 1 - Sankatmochan Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit- Ayodhyapuri Through Its President Suresh Singh Rajput S/o Ujiyar Singh Aged About 55 Years, President Of Sankatmochan Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit- Ayodhyapuri/ Operator Of Govt. Fair Price Shop Id No. 551001029 R/o Ayodhyapuri, P.S- Darri Tahsil- Kathghora, Distt- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Food Department) Korba Distt- Korba (C.G.) 3 - The Food Officer- Korba Distt- Korba (C.G.) 4 - The Food Inspector- Korba Town Distt- Korba (C.G.) 5 - President Of Surayoday Khaaidya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Ayodhyaypuri/ Operator Of Govt. Faire Price Shop - Ayodhyapuri, I.D No. 551001086 - Ayodhyapuri, P.S- Darri Tahsil - Kathghora, Distt- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate appears through VC For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.11 20:35:08 +0530 2 09/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through Video Conferencing as well as Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s appeared on advance copy. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1.That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.3. 10.2. Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3/The Food Officer, Korba, District – Korba has passed an order 21.02.2025 as per Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System in short (Control order 2016) and the license of the petitioner has been cancelled and recovery proceedings has also been initiated against the petitioner. In the order impugned it is directed that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, then the Society is required to file an appeal under Clause 18(1) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System and Control order 2016, before the concerned Collector, within 30 days. 4. Learned State counsel has objected the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner is having alternative remedy available under the law, as such, the petitioner has to approach before the concerned 3 Collector, under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System and Control order 2016 within 30 days. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to file an appropriate appeal before the concerned Collector and he prays that the concerned Collector may be directed to consider his case in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in the present situation, since there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner, under Clause 18(1) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System and Control order 2016 as such, the petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal before the concerned Collector and in case, any appeal is filed before the concerned Collector, in turn the concerned Collector is directed to consider the same and pass an appropriate order in respect of grievance of the petitioner preferably within a stipulated period. 8. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the concerned Collector is required to pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi