Adarsh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1901 Chatt

                                    1



           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        WPC No. 3391 of 2021

  Adarsh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Geedam, Through Its Manager-
  Aneshwar Nag, S/o. Late Chaitram Nag, Aged About 46 Years, Resident
  Of Ward No. 14 Sargiguda Village Barsoor, Dantewada, District
  Dantewada (South Bastar) Chhattisgarh.
                                                         ---- Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Food
   Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay
   Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection,
   Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, 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, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
   District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Deputy Collector And Food Controller 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.
                                                      ---- Respondents

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner - Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondents/State - Shri Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 23/08/2021

Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner was running 13 fair price shop which was running from

2001, at that time there was no upper limit was fixed about the

number of fair price shop to be run by the society. Subsequently,

Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

came into play wherein the number of the upper limit to run the

fair price shop was fixed to three and by order dated 1/09/2020

the respondents have directed that they can only run three

shops as per the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System

(Control) Order, 2016. It is contended that since the petitioner

were running the fair price shop prior to 2016 implementation of

Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016,

would not be applicable. It is further submitted that lot of

workers are working in the fair price shop and if Chhattisgarh

Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is given a

retrospective effect then the employee will loose their job as

they are at the fag end of their carrier and it will lead to

unemployment and starvation and the question of livelihood. He

refers to order passed in WPC No.1980/2020 by the coordinate

bench of this court on 18/09/2020. He would submit that in the

similar fashion the coordinate bench of this court has given

protective umbrella to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits

that till date since the petitioner are running the fair price shop

they may be given opportunity of hearing by making a

representation and till the representation is decided the status

quo with respect to running of fair price shop as on date may not

be disturbed. He also relies on the judgment passed by the

coordinate bench of this court on 25/08/2020 in WPC

No.1926/2020.

2. Considering the prayer made and order passed by the

coordinate bench, the petitioner is given liberty to make a

representation before the respondents No.1 and 2 ventilating all the

grievance including the fact that they are running the fair price shop

since 2001 and all of a sudden if closure is ordered lot of employee

will loose their job and it will lead to question of their livelihood. In

case such representation is filed within a period of three weeks

before the respondents No.1 and 2, same will be decided according

to the policy of the State within a reasonable time. Considering the

order passed by the coordinate bench of this court to advance a

parity, it is directed that till such representation is decided by the

respondent/authority, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue the

fair price shop which are running today.

3. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Aks