1 2026:CGHC:1126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 37 of 2026 • Jay Maa Danteshwari Khadya Suraksha Poshan, Bhaisa Bearing I.D. No. 432009062, Through The President-Ishwari Sahu Wife Of Sanat Sahu, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village- Bhaisa, Post And Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District- Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - The Food Inspector Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 6 - Maa Santoshi Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Balsamund Block- Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.), Through Its President 7 - The Branch Manager District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Durg, Branch Balsamund, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bemetara by which the permission granted to the petitioner regarding Fair Price Shop has been suspended and has further directed to hand over charge along with the BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2026.01.12 17:05:16 +0530 2 material kept in the shop to respondent No. 6 on the count that certain irregularities have been committed with regard to shortage of foodgrains like rice, sugar and salt. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without affording opportunity of hearing the impugned order has been passed even they have passed the order in violation of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 as according to this provision an opportunity of hearing is to be granted, as such, the instant petition has been filed. He would further submit that in an identical matter the Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted interim protection to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would submit that it is an appealable order as per Order 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, therefore, the instant writ petition at this juncture is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. To determine the issue whether the writ petition is maintainable or not it is expedient for this Court to refer to Order 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (in brief "Order of 2016") which reads as under: "18. Appeal- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order of designated officer, denying the allotment of Fair Price Shop, issue or renewal of a ration card or cancellation of the ration card, may appeal to the Collector/ Additional Collector within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may appeal to the State Government within a period of 30 days of receipt of the order and its decision shall be final. (3) No such appeal shall be disposed off unless the aggrieved person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3 (4) During the pendency of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may direct that the order under appeal shall not take into effect for such period as the authority may consider necessary for giving a reasonable opportunity to the other party under sub-rule (3) or until the appeal is disposed off, whichever is earlier." 6. From perusal of Order 18 of the Order of 2016, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy available to him, therefore, this petition is not maintainable at this juncture. Even otherwise, the ground as alleged by the petitioner that principle of natural justice has been violated, therefore, the impugned order is bad- in-law that can be very well agitated before the appellate forum. 7. However, if the petitioner prefers an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the appellate authority or respondent No. 6 will not take plea of limitation as this Court has condoned the delay in preferring the appeal and will decide the case on its own merit within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the appeal. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not commented anything on the merit of the contention raised by the petitioner. 9. From perusal of the order, it is quite vivid that no issue was raised with regard to availability of alternate and efficacious remedies under the Order of 2016, as such, the interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench is distinguishable. 10. With aforesaid observation, direction and liberty, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika