1 2025:CGHC:54313-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 805 of 2025 Durg Vipnan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through The Manager Manohar Chandrakar S/o Makhan Lal Chandrakar, Age About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Thethwar Para, Trishul Chowk Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, 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 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office Durg, 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 5 - Food Controller Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.07 16:49:36 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Gomasta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Add. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Gomasta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents on I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. an application for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 16.07.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1837/2020 (Durg Vipnan Sahkari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh an Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. The facts of the present case are that the writ petitioner itself is a society, registered on 28.7.1998 under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Registration Act. The writ petitioner's society was allotted 18 fair price shops in District Durg in the year 2001. Agreements were entered into between the writ 3 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 writ petitioner was running 18 fair price shops, except three, all the other shops were canceled. The writ petitioner has challenged the said order by filing this WPC No. 1837 of 2020. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.07.2025 dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein holding that decision taken by the authority concerned is within the four corners of the Control Order, 2016. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order dated 13.07.2020 issued by respondent No. 5 – Food Controller, Durg, are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of law, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the appellant society cannot be penalized for the inaction or negligence of the State Government in implementing its own statutory obligations under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. When the State is empowered to control and regulate the Public Distribution System (PDS) under the said provision, it becomes its mandatory duty to enforce and implement 4 the same effectively. Any lapse on the part of the State cannot be visited upon the appellant society by cancelling or restricting its fair price shops. It is further submitted that the petitioner society was allotted five fair price shops in 2001 under the Chhattisgarh (Food) Public Distribution Civil Supplies Scheme, 2001 (“Scheme 2001”). The said scheme contained no prohibition restricting a single co- operative society from operating more than three shops. Hence, the allotments made under Scheme 2001 were perfectly valid and in accordance with the prevailing policy. The respondent authorities, while cancelling the shops vide order dated 13.07.2020, overlooked the applicability and continuity of Scheme 2001 and instead wrongly applied the later Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which could not be applied retrospectively to undo valid allotments made under an earlier scheme. It is a well-settled principle of law that subsequent policy or rules cannot retrospectively nullify vested rights or lawful allotments made under an existing scheme, unless the same is specifically provided. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the sudden change in the regulatory framework under the 2016 Control Order has placed the appellant society in serious hardship, as reduction of its operational shops to merely three would adversely affect the livelihood of several employees and jeopardize the functioning of the entire society. The society, which has been managing these shops efficiently for over two decades, would face financial 5 collapse and unemployment issues among its staff, resulting in a grave violation of their right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Lastly, the respondent authorities themselves issued an order dated 20.10.2022, wherein the Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, clarified that each fair price shop may have one authorized seller, and the number of fair price shops shall be continued in proportion to the number of employed sellers under the same agency. For the remaining unallotted shops, the Collector has been empowered to appoint new directors. Hence, once the appellant society has sufficient manpower and sellers to manage the existing shops, there was no justification for the respondents to curtail its number of shops arbitrarily. Therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law and deserve to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 6 Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions and examining the material placed on record, dismissed the writ petition by observing that although the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the availability of an alternative remedy could be accepted, the writ petition was nevertheless maintainable since the allotment orders were issued in the year 2001 and the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 was passed after a lapse of 19 years pursuant to the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The Court observed that as per Clause 9.4 of the Control Order, 2016, generally only one fair price shop can be allotted to any person or agency, but in special circumstances, the authority may allot more than one shop, provided that the number of such shops shall not exceed three and the reasons for doing so are recorded. The learned Single Judge further held that although 21 fair price shops had been allotted to the petitioner society in the year 2001, after the coming into force of the Control Order, 2016, all existing fair price shops and their conditions of operation came to be governed by the provisions of the said Control Order. In terms of Clause 22 of the Control Order, 2016, which deals with Repeal and Savings, the earlier Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 stood repealed, and any order made or action taken under the repealed order was deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 2016 Control Order. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge found that the argument advanced by the petitioner 7 that the Control Order, 2016, could not be applied retrospectively to the allotments made in 2001 was misconceived. The authorities had the power under the 2016 Control Order to modify, rescind, or cancel any earlier allotment, and the cancellation of 13 shops by the Food Controller, Durg, was held to be in conformity with Clause 9.4 of the said Order. Finding that the action taken by the respondent authorities was within the scope and authority of law, the learned Single Judge concluded that no case was made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet