1 2026:CGHC:24288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2861 of 2026 Khaadya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit - Chandranagar, Through President Kayum Ansari S/o Ush Mohamad Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chandranagar, Tahsil - Ramanujganj- Distt. -Balrampur- Ramanujganj (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), Balrampur Distt. -Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj- Distt. - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Assistant Food Officer, Ramanujganj- Distt. -Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - President of Laghu Vanopaj Samiti Bulgaon / Operator Of Govt. Faire Price Shop Bulgaon R/o Village Bulgaon Tahsil Ramanujganj- Distt. -Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.17 18:19:18 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 21.5.2026 ANNEXURE P/1 issued 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.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- Society is a duly registered cooperative society and has been operating the fair price shop at Village Chandranagar pursuant to the allotment order dated 24.08.2020. It is contended that since the date of allotment, the petitioner has been regularly and satisfactorily running the fair price shop in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the public distribution system and that no genuine complaint was ever received from the beneficiaries or ration card holders. Learned counsel would further submit that even the members of the Gram Panchayat, local villagers and ration card holders submitted representations before the authorities supporting the functioning of the petitioner-Society and specifically stating that the complaints against the petitioner 3 were politically motivated. It is argued that despite the aforesaid material being placed on record, the respondent authorities proceeded to cancel the allotment without proper consideration of the petitioner's reply and supporting documents. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the entire action of the respondents is vitiated by gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is contended that the inspection report dated 07.10.2025, which formed the very basis of the proceedings, was prepared behind the back of the petitioner and was never supplied to the petitioner. Likewise, neither the inspection report nor any material relied upon by the authorities was furnished along with the show-cause notice. Although the petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying all allegations and explaining that no irregularity had been committed in the operation of the fair price shop, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted thereafter. According to learned counsel, neither the complainant, nor any ration card holder, nor the concerned Food Inspector was examined, and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the allegations or adduce evidence in support of its defence. 4. It is lastly submitted that after receipt of the petitioner's reply, the respondent No.3 directly proceeded to pass the impugned order without granting any effective opportunity of personal hearing and 4 without recording any finding as to why the explanation furnished by the petitioner was unacceptable. Learned counsel argues that the impugned order is a non-speaking order bereft of reasons and has been passed in complete disregard of the statutory safeguards incorporated under Rule 16(3) of the Control Order, 2016. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.172/2024 decided on 10.04.2024, as well as the orders passed in W.P.(C) No.2738/2026, W.P.(C) No.6097/2024, W.P.(C) No.4423/2024, W.P.(C) No.1583/2024, W.P.(C) No.763/2026 and W.P.(C) No.1903/2020, learned counsel submits that where a statute contemplates an opportunity of hearing, such opportunity must be real, meaningful and effective. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop of the petitioner be quashed and the matter be remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned order cancelling the allotment of the fair price shop has been passed by the competent authority in exercise of powers conferred under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is further submitted that against the impugned order, an efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Rule/Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. According to learned State counsel, all the grounds sought 5 to be raised in the present writ petition, including the allegations regarding non-supply of the inspection report, violation of principles of natural justice, non-compliance with Rule 16(3) of the Control Order and the correctness of the findings recorded by the competent authority, can effectively be examined by the appellate authority. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition in the first instance and the petitioner should be relegated to avail the statutory remedy available under the Control Order, 2016. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the challenge in the present petition is directed against the order passed by the competent authority cancelling the allotment of the fair price shop granted in favour of the petitioner-Society. It is not disputed that the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a statutory remedy of appeal against such an order. The grievances sought to be raised by the petitioner, namely, that the inspection report was prepared behind its back, that the said report was not supplied to it, that no effective opportunity of hearing was granted and that the mandatory procedure contemplated under Rule 16(3) of the Control Order was not followed, are all matters which can appropriately be examined by the appellate authority on appreciation of the relevant record. 6 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that when a complete and efficacious statutory remedy is available, the writ Court should ordinarily refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when adjudication of the controversy would require examination of factual aspects relating to the inspection, the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the procedure adopted by the authorities and compliance with the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. The appellate authority is competent to examine all such issues and grant appropriate relief in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, the present writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the competent appellate authority under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. In the event such appeal is preferred within a period of 10 days from today, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of its filing, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 9. It is further directed that while deciding the appeal, the appellate authority shall independently consider all grounds that may be raised by the petitioner, including the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, alleged non-supply of the inspection report and 7 documents relied upon, compliance with Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and any other contention available to the petitioner in law. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh