1 WPC No. 2247 of 2025 2025:CGHC:20457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2247 of 2025 1 - Sulabh Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Bhilai Through President Suraj Singh Rajput, S/o Shri Dhananjay Singh Rajput, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Shop No. 19, Sector 07, Market Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Food Civil Supplies And Customer Protection, Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Food Controller Officer Of Collector (Food Officer) District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate 2 WPC No. 2247 of 2025 For Respondent-State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05.05.2025 1. Heard. 2. The present petition is being filed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 and memo dated 30.09.2024 issued by Respondent No. 3, by which the fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of panchanama prepared by the concerned officer and it has been held that there was shortage and irregularities in respect to online stock and physical stock of the above- stated shop. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside quash the above impugned order dated 30.09.2024 and set aside the order of cancellation of fair price shop I.D. No.431004190 run by the petitioner and also quash the memo dated 30.09.2024 whereby, the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 17,52,311/- 10.2. Any other relief, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.” 3 WPC No. 2247 of 2025 4. Facts of the present case is that the petitioner has challenged the order dated September 30, 2024, by Respondent No. 3 (Food Controller), canceling the fair price shop operated by the petitioner with Shop ID No. 431004190, located in Risali, Ward No. 61, Pragati Nagar. The petitioner alleges that the order was passed without evidence, solely based on a panchnama prepared by concerned officers, which claimed shortages and irregularities in online and physical stock. 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 the petitioner alleges that the Food Controller passed the order without considering the actual facts, overlooking online portal issues, and without evidence or statements from beneficiaries. The order appears biased and arbitrary, as shown by the premature penalty imposition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that the respondents ignored complaints about portal irregularities and favored another person by allotting the shop to them immediately after cancellation, violating the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016. The 4 WPC No. 2247 of 2025 punishment seems disproportionate and unsupported by legal conclusions., the shop was suspended. Therefore, the order impugned 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 requires no interference of this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable, as the cancellation 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 case of Sitara Women Self Help Group, Chamanpur vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others 1 , the learned State counsel submits that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the law. If the petitioner approaches the 1 Passed in Writ Petition (C) No.4043 of 2022 decided on 16.04.2025 5 WPC No. 2247 of 2025 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 (supra) 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. 6 WPC No. 2247 of 2025 10. It is further made clear that the petitioner is required to approach before the SDO(Revenue) on or before 21th 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 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 Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA