1 2026:CGHC:2373-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 9 of 2026 1 - Annapurna Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Baseen Through its President Smt. Jhangali Bai D/o Kalaram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 39, Khaira Village- Baseen, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Woman And Child Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Sakti, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) , Sakti, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hemlata Chandra W/o Premchand Chandra, Sarpanch Village Basin, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate. For State : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15-01-2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.15 19:52:33 +0530 2 1. Heard Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents-State. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 read with Rule 158(10) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2007, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition, has challenged the order dated 03-12-2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.6269/2025 ( Annapurna Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Baseen Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) making the following prayer in the present writ appeal:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 03.12.2025 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 6269/2025, and grant relief by issuing appropriate writ /order/direction as prayed for in the writ petition No. 6269 of 2025 quashing order dated 21.11.2025 passed by respondent no. 03 and such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner vehemently argued that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for submitting its reply with respect to the violation of the control order and it was 3 stated that if the petitioner fails to submit its reply within three days from the passing of the show cause notice then the petitioner’s licence would be suspended, but before that the licence of the petitioner was suspended on the same date and the said show cause notice was challenged before the learned Single Judge who after hearing learned counsels for the parties have disposed of the petition of the petitioner directing the respondent to consider the reply as well as to supply the documents as was demanded by the petitioner and remanded the matter to the authority to conclude the proceeding expeditiously. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner is having opportunity to pursue the matter before the authority. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. After taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has observed in para 6 and 7 of the impugned order dated 03-12-2025 that:- “6. Considering submission made by counsel for the respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the decision is yet to be taken by respondent no. 3 after considering the reply to be submitted by petitioner on the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner. 4 However, respondent no. 3 is directed to supply all the relevant documents as prayed for by the petitioner in his application, which was considered and relied upon for issuance of show cause notice and passing an order Anenxure P-1 of suspension of the agency of petitioner to run fair price shop within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner will thereafter submit its reply within a further period of ten days. 7. Respondent no. 3 is also directed to conclude the proceedings thereafter, expeditiously, within a further period of one month, in accordance with law.” 7. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil