1 2026:CGHC:21694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3130 of 2021 1 - Jai Sandhya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Odadabri Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. Through Its President, Smt. Sarojani Bai W/o Shri Shivkumar Tandan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Odadabri, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Collector Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Food Inspector District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Soniya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Odadabri Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. Through The President, Soniya, Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Odadabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Ms. Ananya Chaterjee on behalf of Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/05/2026 1. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that this writ petition itself is not maintainable as the writ petition is filed after passing of an order by the Secretary in appeal staying the effect and operation of the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Collector. He contended that petitioner has not pleaded in specific terms on the date of filing of writ petition about status of appeal filed before the Secretary/respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that she is not aware with regard to status of proceedings before the respondent No.1 in appeal. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case and further considering that even if the appeal is decided by respondent No.1 on merits, then it is the final order of the respondent No.1, which is to be challenged, I do not find any good ground to continue with this writ petition. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner or respondent No.6 to take recourse to law against the final order passed or to be passed by respondent No.1 in appeal Case NO.F.-24/2018/29-2. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram