1 2025:CGHC:18634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2030 of 2025 1 - Vikash Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Gopal Prasad Agarwal Aged About 41 Years President Of Ma Servamangla Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit- Korba R/o Main Road - Korba, P.S. And Tahsil- Korba Distt- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 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.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate through video conferencing For State :- Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. & Mrs. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.04.2025 1. Heard. 2. The present petition is being filed against the impugned order Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 dated 25.02.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, by which the fair price shop of the petitioner has been suspended and order of recovery of Rs. 20,79,761.40/- against the petitioner has been passed. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 ANNEXURE P/1 issued 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.” 4. Facts of the present case is that the impugned order cancels the attachment of the petitioner's fair price shop (ID No. 551001018) and directs recovery of Rs. 20,79,761.40 from the petitioner under Rule 16(7) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner alleges that the order is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Rule 16 of the Control Order, 2016, as it was passed without considering the petitioner's submissions, affording an opportunity for hearing, or conducting physical verification of the shop. The background facts reveal that Respondent No. 3 allotted the fair price shop to the petitioner on 12.09.2019. The petitioner took charge of the shop but did not receive the stock of essential food grains, including rice, salt, and sugar, which was not deposited by the earlier agency. Despite bringing this to the attention of Respondent No. 3, no action was taken. Respondent No. 4 submitted a report on the shortage of 3 essential food grains, based on which Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 02.05.2024. Although the petitioner submitted a detailed reply, the shop was suspended on 25.02.2025, without considering the reply or conducting physical verification, contrary to Rule 16(3) of the Control Order, 2016. The petitioner challenged the suspension order before this Court, which was set aside on 04.02.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 inspected the petitioner’s shop and prepared an inspection report alleging shortage of essential good grains, which is contrary to Rule 9(9) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and submitted the report to Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 20.02.2025, in which the only allegation was that the petitioner self-help group is having shortage of essential food grains. It is stated that in response to the notice, the petitioner submitted a reply stating that there was a shortage of essential food grains from the earlier agency, which had not been updated in the online server. Additionally, due to the AePDS update in July, server or technical issues led to manual distribution, which was not reflected in the online server. Therefore, physical verification is necessary to verify the facts. He further submits that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the shop was suspended. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the 4 submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed and requires no interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable, as the suspension order in question falls within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who is the prescribed authority under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and is required to conduct the necessary enquiry in accordance with the said Order. 7. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also on various occasions by this Hon’ble High Court, including the recent decision in the matter of Sitara Women Self Help Group, Chamanpur vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WPC No. 4043/2022, decided on 16.04.2025, the learned State counsel submits that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the law. If the petitioner approaches the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Collector by way of an appeal along with an application for interim relief, the concerned authorities are at liberty to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and also taking into account the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble 5 Supreme Court as well as this Court, particularly the recent decision in Sitara Women Self Help Group, Chamanpur vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WPC No. 4043/2022, decided on 16.04.2025, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Collector by way of an appeal along with an application for interim relief within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The concerned appellate authorities shall consider and decide the interim application filed by the petitioner within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such application. 10. It is further made clear that the petitioner is required to approach the SDO(R) on or before 10th May, 2025. 11. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is emphatically directed to decide the appeal and the application for interim relief expeditiously. 12. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna