1 CGHC010264342021 2026:CGHC:29513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4086 of 2021 1 - Aadivasi Vipran Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Its Asst. Manager - Maniram Yadav, S/o Late Puran Singh Yadav,, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of - Ward No. 12, Dantewada, District - Dantewada (South Bastar) (Chhattisgarh), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block-2 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Collector (Food) Near Collectorate Office Dantewada, District - Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Commissioner Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Directorate Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Block-2 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Food Officer Dantewada (South Bastar), District- Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) 6 - The Asst. Registrar Cooperative Society, South Bastar Dantewada, District - Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) 7 - The Sub Divisional Officer Dantewada, District- Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate . For Respondents/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy.G.A. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 13/07/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relates with the instant petition. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned advertisement dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner society to continue their previous allotted shop without any hindrance. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other orders/direction that, this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that similar issue came up for consideration before Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.1837 of 2020, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2025. Order passed by the writ Court was put to challenge in writ appeal bearing W.A. No. 805 of 2025, wherein Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ appeal upholding the order passed in writ petition, therefore, this writ petition be also dismissed in similar terms. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for respondents/State with regard to issue involved in the writ petition to be identical issue which was considered and 3 decided in WPC No.1837 of 2020 and the Writ Appeal No. 805 of 2025. 4. In this writ petition learned counsel for petitioner has pleaded that earlier petitioner was operating 13 fair price shops since 2004, however, after coming into force of the Order 2016 (Sub-chapter-4) upper limit to run fair price shop was decreased to maximum 3. As the grievance which is raised by petitioner has been elaborately discussed and dealt with in WPC No.1837 of 2020 and the writ Court considering the provision of Clause 9.4 and 22 of the Control Order, 2016, has dismissed the writ petition, which was upheld in the writ appeal observing thus :- “8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions and examining the material placed on record, dismissed the writ petition by observing that although the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the availability of an alternative remedy could be accepted, the writ petition was nevertheless maintainable since the allotment orders were issued in the year 2001 and the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 was passed after a lapse of 19 years pursuant to the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The Court observed that as per Clause 9.4 of the Control Order, 2016, generally only one fair price shop can be allotted to any person or agency, but in special circumstances, the authority may allot more than one shop, provided that the number of such shops shall not exceed three and the 4 reasons for doing so are recorded. The learned Single Judge further held that although 21 fair price shops had been allotted to the petitioner society in the year 2001, after the coming into force of the Control Order, 2016, all existing fair price shops and their conditions of operation came to be governed by the provisions of the said Control Order. In terms of Clause 22 of the Control Order, 2016, which deals with Repeal and Savings, the earlier Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 stood repealed, and any order made or action taken under the repealed order was deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 2016 Control Order. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge found that the argument advanced by the petitioner that the Control Order, 2016, could not be applied retrospectively to the allotments made in 2001 was misconceived. The authorities had the power under the 2016 Control Order to modify, rescind, or cancel any earlier allotment, and the cancellation of 13 shops by the Food Controller, Durg, was held to be in conformity with Clause 9.4 of the said Order. Finding that the action taken by the respondent authorities was within the scope and authority of law, the learned Single Judge concluded that no case was made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the 5 instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 5. In view of the above submission made by counsel for parties, facts of the case, that identical issue is considered and dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal I am of the considered view that the case is squarely covered with the decision in WPC No.1837 of 2020 dated 16.07.2025 and W.A. No.805 of 2025 decided on 07.11.2025. Accordingly, this writ petition is also dismissed for the same reason. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram