1 2025:CGHC:18384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3088 of 2022 1 - Ma Mahila Self Help Group Deviganj Through President Smt. Anita Choudhary W/o Santosh Choudhary Aged About-30 Years President Of Ma Mahila Self Help Group - Deviganj R/o Village - Deviganj Block Ramchandrapur Tahsil - Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, (Food Department) Balrampur District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Food Inspector, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5 - Govt. Faire Price Shop-Devgai, Block- Ramchandrapur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate through VC For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.05.02 17:13:14 +0530 2 Order on Board 23.04.2025 1. Heard. 2. The present petition is being filed against the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 issued by Respondent No. 3, by which the fair price shop of the petitioner has been suspended on the ground that Ma Mahila Self Help Group, Deviganj is not registered under the Bihan Scheme, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. 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 6.7.2022 ANNEXURE P/1 issued by the respondent no.3. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to allow to continue of the petitioner for operating the fair price shop of village-Daviganj Tahsil Ramanujganj Distt- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G). 10.3 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 dated 06.07.2022 has been issued by Respondent No. 3, by which the fair price shop of the petitioner has been suspended on the ground that Ma Mahila Self Help Group, Deviganj is not registered 3 under the Bihan Scheme, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. In the reply, it was clearly stated that at the time of allotment of the fair price shop, the Bihan Scheme was not in existence; therefore, there was no requirement for registration of the self-help group under the said scheme. The Bihan Scheme came into force in the year 2016, whereas the petitioner group was constituted in 2010. Hence, the ground taken by Respondent No. 3 for suspension of the fair price shop is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 25.05.2022, the Respondent No. 4 inspected the petitioner’s shop and prepared an inspection report alleging that, under the Bihan Scheme, the petitioner self-help group is not registered, which is contrary to Rule 9(9) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and submitted the report to Respondent No. 3. Based on this inspection report, Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 26.05.2022, in which the only allegation was that the petitioner self-help group is not registered under the Bihan Scheme. It is stated that in response to the notice, the petitioner submitted a reply stating that the group was registered offline, and at that time, there was no requirement for registration under the Bihan Scheme. The application along with the proposal for allocation was duly submitted to the ADO, and the group was constituted in 2010, well before the Bihan Scheme and PDS Rules came into effect in 2016. Hence, there was no 4 requirement for such registration for the purpose of allocation of a fair price shop. He further submits that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the shop was suspended. Hence, this petition was filed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the 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. 5 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 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. However, till the final decision of this case, the interim order earlier granted by this Court shall remain intact. It is also made clear that the said interim order shall be effective only for the limited period until the decision of the appeal by the concerned authority. 12. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is emphatically directed to decide the appeal and the application for interim relief expeditiously, as the matter has been pending since 2022, and 6 the petitioner has been enjoying the benefit of the status quo order despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. 13. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha