1 2025:CGHC:16552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5879 of 2022 1 - Jay Maa Laxmi Mahila Swa- Sahayata Samuh, Gardih Through its President Smt. Firtin Bai, Aged About 48 Years, W/o Shri Jayram, R/o Village - Gardih, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Food Inspector, Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Jay Budha Dev Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Gardih, Thorugh its President Smt. Nikita Khairwar, R/o Village Gardih, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Anil S. Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Shri Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the record of case from the respondent authorities. Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.17 20:52:08 +0530 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing/ setting-aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to run allotted fair price shop of Village Gardih. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a registered society under bearing its registration No. 935 and upon completion of allotment process, vide order dated 29.10.2015 after due approval of respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 has allotted the fair price shop of Village Gardih in favour of petitioner Samuh and accordingly an agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner and since then the petitioner is running the said fair price shop without any stigma or complaint as per the norms prescribed by the Government in this regard. However, all of a sudden, vide order dated 28.11.2022, without serving any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 has suspended the allotment of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner Samiti and temporarily allotted the said shop to the respondent No.5, which is in complete violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though there is an alternative remedy available under the law as per Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, however, since there is violation of principles of natural justice, as such the bar of 3 alternative remedy would not come into the way of the petitioner. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1. He further submits that the petitioner is still running the fair price shop, whereas learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that at present respondent No.5 is running the fair price ship. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 4 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 jointly submit that principles of natural justice will not be applicable in the present case and the petitioner has to approach before the concerned authority as per Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. 5. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. In Whirlpool Corporation case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself 4 certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. 16. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163 laid down that existence of an adequate legal remedy was a factor to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs. This was followed by another Rashid case, namely, K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 which reiterated the above proposition and held that where alternative remedy existed, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that writ petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances. 19. Another Constitution Bench decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Companies Distt. I, AIR 1961 SC 372 laid down: 5 "Though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Courts will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences. Writ of certiorari and prohibition can issue against the Income Tax Officer acting without jurisdiction under Section 34, Income Tax Act." 20. Much water has since flown under the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.” 7. When the present matter is examined in light of the aforesaid principles enunciated in the Whirlpool Corporation case (supra), the order impugned dated 28.11.2022 merely on temporary suspension of functioning of the fair price shop of the petitioner society and at the stage of preliminary suspension order there is no requirement under the law to hear the petitioner. The petitioner after temporary suspension is required to be heard in proceeding 6 under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the prescribed authority under the law is required to initiate a proceeding in which the petitioner shall be given opportunity of hearing. In the said proceeding, the prescribed authority/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) will hold a proceeding and after following due procedure of law and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned fair price shop will pass an order and if there would be any violation of conditions of licence he will impose penalty while cancelling his licence and the concerned fair price shop. In the matter in hand, only a suspension order has been passed and temporarily the fair price shop has been attached to another fair price shop, respondent No.5, as such the contention raised by the petitioner that before suspension order he was not heard and there is violation of principle of natural justice is totally misconceived. The principles enunciated in the Whirlpool Corporation case (supra) are not applicable in the present matter and it is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. There is specific provision under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and after passing of the order of prescribed authority, i.e., the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the petitioner is having another efficacious remedy of filing an appeal as per Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. 8. Since the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Collector, Sarangarh, as such this petition is withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. 9. Since there is a dispute regarding functioning of the fair price shop, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today till filing of the appeal by the petitioner before the concerned Collector. 7 10. The concerned Collector is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner within 20 days from the date of filing of the appeal. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh