1 2025:CGHC:20770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1036 of 2025 1 - Jai Maa Sitla Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Sursabandha Through - Its President Smt. Indrani Sahu W/o Late Than Singh Sahu, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office District Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - Food Controller District Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Rajim, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 6 - Krishak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Kopra Tahsil Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 7 - Govt. Fair Price Shop Vill. Tarra, I.D. No. 442013025, Tah. Rajim, Distt.- Gariyaband C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Government Advocate For Resp. No. 2 & 4 : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/05/2025 1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.01.2025, passed by respondent No. 5, the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Rajim, District Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. It was alleged that the order violates the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court on 18.11.2024, and 13.01.2025, in earlier writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) No. 5693/2024 and 171/2025. Furthermore, it contravenes the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The impugned order was passed without providing the petitioner with relevant documents, without recording witness statements, and without affording the petitioner an opportunity for cross-examination. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside /quash the order dated 31.01.25 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent no.5 Sub Divisional Officer (R), Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) and petitioner may kindly be pleased to allow to run fair price shop at village Sursabandha Tah. Rajim District Gariyaband (C.G.). 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, has been operating a fair price shop in the village of Sursabandha since 2021, under the leadership of Smt. Indrani Sahu. The society has incurred significant expenses for infrastructure maintenance and relies on Government commissions to sustain its operations. On 29.07.2024, respondent no.5 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, and after the reply submitted by petitioner, on 08.10.2024, respondent no. 5 suspended the allotment and attached the fair price shop to respondent no.7. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued on 21.10.2024, directing the petitioner to hand over possession to respondent no.6. 3 The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.5693/2024 before this Hon'ble Court, in which, on 18.11.2024 this Court stayed the operation of the order and directed respondent no. 5 to pass a final order in accordance with law. However, respondent no. 5, in violation of the direction issued by this Court, passed an order on 17.12.2024, maintaining the earlier suspension, prompting the petitioner to file W.P.(C) No.171/2025. On 13.01.2025, the Court quashed the 17.12.2024 order and again directed respondent no.5 to pass a detailed and speaking order. On 20.01.2025, respondent no.5 issued a charge sheet to the petitioner, who, in turn, replied on 23.01.2025. Subsequently, on 31.01.2025, respondent no. 5 issued an impugned order canceling the fair price shop allotment without providing the necessary documents, without recording witness statements, and without allowing cross-examination, prompting the petitioner to seek legal relief based on procedural violations and the disregard of previous orders passed by the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by respondent no.5 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to established law. The order violates the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.5693/2024 and W.P.(C) No.171/2025, dated 18.11.2024 and 13.01.2025, respectively. The order was passed without supplying relevant documents to the petitioner, without recording witness statements, without providing the opportunity to cross-examine, and without conducting a proper enquiry. Additionally, respondent no. 5 failed to consider that the shortage of paddy identified by the enquiry officer had already been fulfilled by the petitioner, as evidenced by a document dated 29.12.2024. Furthermore, regarding 4 the Bardana issue, 750 pieces were handed over to the Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kondkera, with a receipt on record, and Rs. 84,922/- was deposited for the fair price shop but not withdrawn by the petitioner society. The order was passed without properly considering the reply submitted by petitioner and failed to acknowledge that the petitioner society did not hand over charge as the order dated 08.10.2024 was under challenge before this Hon'ble Court. Moreover, the impugned order contravenes the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the order is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and illegal, as it has resulted in the petitioner society and its employees losing their right to livelihood, in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner society has already incurred substantial costs to maintain its infrastructure, relying solely on the Government commission to support its staff and workers. The society has been running the fair price shop in the village of Adbhar since 2021 as per the allotment order, and any action that disrupts this operation would severely affect its ability to function. 4. Learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which allows the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order before the concerned appellate authority. The recourse of petitioner to this alternative remedy is necessary, as the statutory provisions provide a structured mechanism to address grievances regarding the allotment of fair 5 price shops. The respondents further argue that the petitioner is prematurely approaching this Hon'ble Court without exhausting this alternative remedy, which is both adequate and efficacious to resolve the issues raised in the writ petition. Moreover, the respondents assert that the allegations of petitioner regarding procedural lapses, such as the failure to provide relevant documents, the lack of cross-examination, and the absence of a proper enquiry, are matters that can be addressed through the appeal process outlined in the Control Order, 2016. The appeal mechanism would allow for a detailed examination of the issues raised by the petitioner, including the adequacy of the enquiry and whether the order passed by respondent no. 5 was in compliance with the legal provisions. Therefore, the respondents contend that the present writ petition is not maintainable and should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, as the petitioner has not exhausted the appropriate statutory process before seeking relief from this Hon'ble Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 6. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by respondent no. 5, Sub- Divisional Officer (R), Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, alleging violations of procedural safeguards and non-compliance with prior directions issued by this Court. The petitioner has raised several contentions, including the non-supply of documents, absence of witness statements, and lack of opportunity for cross- examination. The petitioner also claims that the impugned order 6 contravenes the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and infringes upon the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. However, it is pertinent to note that the respondents have raised a valid objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy available under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides for an appeal to the concerned appellate authority against the order passed by respondent no.5. The petitioner has failed to exhaust this alternative remedy and, therefore, the present writ petition is premature and not maintainable. 7. The law is well-settled that when a statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved party, particularly in the form of an appeal, the petitioner must first avail of that remedy before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy is a well-recognized ground for dismissal of writ petitions. 8. In the present case, Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, specifically provides a mechanism for appeal against orders passed by authorities under the Public Distribution System, including orders of suspension or cancellation of fair price shop allotments. This remedy provides an adequate forum to address the grievances raised by the petitioner concerning the alleged procedural lapses and the merits of the order dated 31.01.2025. While the petitioner has raised several procedural issues in the present petition, including non-compliance 7 with statutory procedures, it is open to the petitioner to raise these very issues before the appellate authority i.e. the Collector in an appeal along with application for stay under the aforementioned statutory provision. The appellate process will afford the petitioner an opportunity to present its case fully, including the opportunity to produce documents, cross-examine witnesses, and challenge the findings of the enquiry officer. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should first avail of the alternative remedy available under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The statutory appellate mechanism is sufficient and effective to resolve the disputes raised by the petitioner. 9. In light of the availability of an alternative remedy, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may pursue the appeal under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. 10. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the issues raised in the present petition before the appellate authority in an appeal along with an application for stay, in turn, the appellate authority is directed to decide the interim application filed by petitioner within ten days from the date of filing of such application and to decide the appeal within a period of further 30 days in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE