1 2025:CGHC:18626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2016 of 2025 1 - Lashita Women Self Help Group- Patharripara Through Treasurer Smt. Chanda Yadav W/o Ramji Yadav Aged About 38 Years Treasurer Of Lashita Women Self Help Group- Patharripara R/o Patharripara, Tahsil- Korba (Distt- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner 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.) 5 - President Of Bhadrapara Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Bhadrapara/operator Of Govt. Faire Price Shop- Bhadrapara, I.D. No. 551001020- Bhadrapara, P.S. And Tahsil Korba, 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/Respondent/s :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.17 12:13:18 +0530 2 Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate through video conferencing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s appearing on advance copy. 2. The present petition is being filed against the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 issued by Respondent No.3, by which the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner has been cancelled and order of recovery of Rs. 26,90,907.37 against the petitioner has been passed as per Rule 16 (7) of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) order 2016. 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 passed by the respondent No.3. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Brief fact of this case is that the, present petition is being made against the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 (ΑΝΝNEXURE P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 in Food Case No. 0502/2024 by which the attachment of the Fair Price Shop of petitioner ID No. 551001057 has been canceled and order for recovery of Rs 26,90907.37 against the petitioner has been passed as per Rule 3 16(7) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control order dated 2016) for short (Control Order 2016) without the considering filed by the petitioner and without giving opportunity to the petitioner and without any physical verification of the shop of petitioner and contrary to the Rule 16(3) of the control order 2016 which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 16 of control order 2016. As the respondent No.3, allotted the Fair Price Shop of Dingapur Korba to the petitioner shop on 09.10.2019 and after attachment, the earlier agency was handed over the charge of the Fair Price Shop - Dingapur to the petitioner and the charge of shortage Rice, Salt, Sugar and other essential food grains was not handed over to the petitioner as per stock of the shop and which was not deposited by the earlier agency and which was not update in online server, which was shown in the online server. On the same shortage of essential food gains, respondent No.4 submitted the report before the respondent No.3. On the basis of said report, respondent No.3 issued the show cause notice to the petitioner on 02.05.2024. After receiving of show cause notice, petitioner submitted the detail reply but without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and without any physical verification of the shop of petitioner and contrary to the Rule 16 (3) of Control order 2016, shop of petitioner was suspended on 22.12.2024, which order was challenge by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 16.01.2025, this Hon'ble Court was please to set aside the suspension order dated 22.12.2024 and 4 directed to the respondent No.3 to pass final order in accordance with law vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed in W.P(C) No. 276/2025. He has submitted that after passing of the order of this Hon'ble respondent No.3 again issued show cause notice to petitioner on dated 03.02.2025 and after receiving of notice petitioner submitted the detailed reply and also submitted his statement and stating that there is shortage of essential food grains of the earlier agency which was not adjusted in online server and due to APDS was updated in the month of July and due to server problem or technical problem, distribution was made on manually and the same was not updated in online server and the same is shown in online server therefore the said facts is liable to verified after conducting the physical verification but after receiving of reply, respondent No.3 without conducting any enquiry and without conducting any physical verification of the shop of petitioner and without recording the statement of the concerned food inspector and without initiating any proceeding under rule 16(3) of Control order 2016, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order which is illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provision of Rule 16(3) of Control order 2016 and which is violation of natural justice, hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allotment order of the shop, petitioner was operating the Fair Price Shop as per terms and condition prescribed by the govt. and no any complain against the petitioner shop but without any cogent 5 reason, the shop of petitioner has been cancelled which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and without any physical verification of the shop of petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and contrary to the Rule 16 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution and Control order 2016, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order as the inspection report was prepared only on the basis of online server without any physical verification of the essential food grains of the shop of petitioner. Further, after 8 month from the issuance of the show cause notice, shop of petitioner was suspended and the said suspension order has already set aside by this Hon'ble Court in earlier round of litigation on the ground that the respondent No.3 has suspended the shop of petitioner without following the procedure of law but after passing of the order of this Hon'ble Court, respondent No, 3 again adopted the same proceeding and cancelled the allotment of the shop of petitioner and passed the impugned order which is illegal, arbitrary and country to law and which is contrary to Rule 16 of Control order 2016. As such, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. 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 6 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 Supreme Court as well as this Court, particularly the recent decision in Sitara Women Self Help Group, Chamanpur vs. 7 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 25 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 45 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 9th June, 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 Ravi Mandavi