1 2025:CGHC:33291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1837 of 2020 1 - Durg Vipnan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Its Manager Shri Hemnath Dewangan S/o Late Shri Chandu Lal Dewangan, Aged About 57 Years, Residence Of Subhash Nagar Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block -2 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Commissioner Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Directorate Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Block -2 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Food Controller Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate along with Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relates with the instant petition. SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 13.7.2020 passed by the office of respondent No.5 (Annexure-P/1). 10.3) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other orders/ direction that, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner itself is a society, registered on 28.7.1998 under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co- operative Societies Registration Act. The petitioner’s society was allotted 18 fair price shops in District Durg in the year 2001. Agreements were entered into between the petitioner and the concerned Food Officer in 2001. The State of Chhattisgarh framed the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short ‘Control Order, 2016’), which came into force on 23rd January, 2017. The respondent authorities issued an order dated 13.7.2020, whereby all fair price shops allotted to persons with more than three fair price shops were canceled in the State of Chhattisgarh. As the petitioner was running 18 fair price shops, except three, all the other shops were canceled. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Food Controller, Durg, dated 13.7.2020, is not sustainable according to the Control Order, 2016. He would further contend that since the allotment orders to run 18 fair price shops were issued in favour of the petitioner in 2001, and the decision to cancel the fair price shops was taken in 2020, thus, the Control Order, 2016, will not apply in this case and its provisions cannot be given effective to, which provides that a person cannot be permitted to run more than three fair price shops. He would further submit that as a legal issue is involved, 3 the petition is maintainable. It is also contended that, according to the provisions of Clause 18 of the Control Order, 2016, an appeal would not lie against the cancellation of allotted fair price shops. He would pray to quash the order dated 13.7.2020 pertaining to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority and Others, (2023) 109 GSTR 402 and Sonia vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 627. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that, according to clause 9.4 of the Order, 2016, only one fair price shop can be allotted to any agency in its area, but to ensure a regular distribution, the authority may allot more than one shop, but not exceeding three. She would contend that as the petitioner was running 18 fair price shops, the Food Controller decided to cancel 15 fair price shops pursuant to clause 9.4 of the Control Order, 2016. She would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. The contention made by counsel for the petitioner with regard to the alternative remedy can be accepted. As the allotment orders were issued in the year 2001 in favour of the petitioner to run 18 fair price shops, and the order impugned was issued on 13.2.2020, after 19 years pursuant to the Control Order, 2016, in the opinion of this Court, the writ petition is maintainable. 4 7. It appears that in 2001, fair price shops were allotted to the petitioner across District Durg. The State Government framed the Control Order, 2016, which came into force on 23.1.2017. Clause 9.4 of the Control Order, 2016 specifically states that one fair price shop can be allotted to a person or agency, but the authority may allot more than one shop, but not exceeding three to a person, after specifying valid reasons. 8. Clause 9.4 is reproduced herein below:- “9.4) Generally, only one Fair Price Shop can be allotted to any agency in its area, but in order to ensure regular distribution of essential commodities to ration cardholder consumers, shop allotment authority can allot more than one shop specifying valid reason, but in no circumstances the number of shops so allotted shall exceed three Fair Price Shops.” 9. Though 21 fair price shops were allotted to the petitioner in the year 2001, but after the enactment of the Control Order, 2016, all fair price shops and the conditions of their functioning are governed by the Control Order, 2016. Clause 22 of the Control Order, 2016, which deals with Repeal and Savings, clearly states that the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004, is hereby repealed, and any order made or action taken under the Order so repealed shall be deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provisions of this order. 10. Any agreement or order issued pursuant to the Control Order, 2004, shall be deemed to have been issued under the Control Order, 2016. Therefore, the provisions of the Control Order, 2016 shall attract to the agreements entered into between the parties in the year 2001. Consequently, the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner that the Control Order, 2016, cannot be given retrospective effect 5 appears to be misconceived. The authority concerned has been conferred with the powers to modify, rescind, alter or cancel any order issued pursuant to the Control Order, 2004 or 2016. Pursuant to clause 9.4 of the Control Order, 2016, the Food Controller, Durg, canceled the allotment of 13 shops. The decision taken by the authority concerned is within the four corners of the Control Order, 2016. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provisions of clauses 9.4 & 22 of the Control Order, 2016, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 12. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi