1 2026:CGHC:2348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3176 of 2021 Sahakari Vipnan Samiti Maryadit Balod Through Its Executive President Shri Ramesh Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Shri Paltu Ram Sinha, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Jamaruva, Block P. S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block-2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Commissioner Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Directorate Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Block-2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Food Controller Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. Government Advocate 2 {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} Order on Board 14/01/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an impugned advertisement dated 29.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod, District Balod (C.G.) by which applications for running 16 Fair Price Shops in different Gram Panchayats of Development Block - Balod were invited. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a society registered under Co-operative Societies Act, which was engaged in running 12 Fair Price Shop in District Balod. Those shops were allotted to the petitioner's society some time in the year 2005-06. There was no complaint made against the functioning of the said society and the petitioner, being the registered Society, is running the aforesaid Fair Price Shop with honesty and sincerity. He further submits that a notice dated 06.07.2020 was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod, District Balod to the petitioner's Society inter alia stating that under sub-Clause (4) of Clause 9 of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (henceforth, “Control Order, 2016”), a provision has been made for operation of a maximum of three government fair price shops by one operating agency, but the petitioner is operating 12 Fair Price shops, therefore, the petitioner was given an option to inform as to which are three shops, which he is intended to run. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 1926 of 2020, which was disposed of by this vide its order dated 25.08.2020 permitting the petitioner to make a representation to 3 respondent No. 1 in this regard and till decision of the representation of the petitioner, it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in light of notice dated 06.07.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in compliance of the said order, the petitioner immediately made a representation dated 27.08.2020 to respondent No. 4 - The Commissioner, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department with a copy endorsed to respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed vide communication dated 29.12.2020 by the respondent No. 1 to appear for personal hearing on 12.01.2021 at 11.30 am. However, instead of taking decision on the representation of the petitioner, the impugned advertisement was issued. He next submits that impugned advertisement is issued in teeth of order of the Court, as representation of the petitioner was pending consideration. Thus, the impugned advertisement is liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while referring to return would submit that the representation made by the petitioner was decided by respondent No. 1 on 24.08.2021 vide Annexure R/6. He further submits that under the Control Order, 2016, one agency can run maximum three fair price shops whereas the petitioner's Society was running 12 Fair Price Shops, therefore, an option was given to the petitioner to provide the names of three price shops of his choice. He further submits that this Court on 05.08.2021 granted interim order in favour of petitioner and it appears that at the strength of that interim order, the petitioner-Society is still running 12 Fair Price Shops, which he is not entitled to run barring three fair price shops. He lastly submits that the issued involved in the instant writ petition is no longer res 4 integra in light of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Durg Vipnan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others in WPC No. 1837 of 2020 vide order dated 16.07.2025. Thus, he submits that the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perusal of documents appended with this writ petition, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was running 12 Fair Price Shops in Block Development Balod, District-Balod. Control order, 2016 clearly stipulates that one Agency can run maximum three fair price shops, therefore, initially notice dated 06.07.2020 was issued to the petitioner, which was subject to challenge by him in the earlier round of filing writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 1926 of 2020. 6. Perusal of the order dated dated 25.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1926 of 2020 clearly indicates that this Court has given a prima facie finding that the memo – notice issued by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod does not seem to be in contravention of Control Order 2004 or that matter Control Order, 2016. The petitioner, however, was granted liberty to raise his grievances by way of filing representation and it was ordered that till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. Of course, the representation of the petitioner was decided after issuance of advertisement dated 29.07.2021, but the fact remains that observation made by this Court while passing the order dated 5.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1926 of 2020 goes against the petitioner to say that he is entitled to run 5 only three Fair-Price Shops. It also appears that at the strength of interim order passed by this Court on 05.08.2021, the petitioner- Society is still running 12 Fair Price Shops, rather three fair price shops in the spirit of Control Order 2016. 7. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and the discussions made herein, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned advertisement (Annexure P-1) warranting interference of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is is dismissed. No cost(s). 9. In view of above, interim order dated 05.08.2021 stands vacated. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 11. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.20 17:24:30 +0530