Chattisgarh High Court
Ma Servamangla Prathmik Upbhokta ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18632
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2027 of 2025
1 - Ma Servamangla Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit- Korba Through
President Vikash Agrawal S/o Late Gopal Prasad Aged About 41 Years President Of
Ma Servamangala Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit Korba R/o Main
Road Korba P.S. And Tahsil Korba District - Korba (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil
Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Collector (Food Department ) Korba District - Korba (C.G.)
3 - The Food Officer Korba District - Korba (C.G.)
4 - The Food Inspector Korba Town District - Korba (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate through video
conferencing
For State :- Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. & Mrs. Upasana
Mehta, Dy. G.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
24.04.2025
1. Heard.
Digitally
signed
by
SHAYNA
KADRI
2. The present petition is being filed against the impugned order
dated 06.03.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, by which the fair
price shop of the petitioner has been suspended and order of
recovery of Rs. 16,57,167.55/- against the petitioner has been
passed.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be
pleased to set aside of the impugned order
dated 06.03.2025 ANNEXURE P/1 issued by
the respondent no.3.
10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be
granted to the petitioners which this Hon'ble
court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
4. Facts of the present case is that the impugned order cancels the
attachment of the petitioner's fair price shop (ID No. 551001017)
and directs recovery of Rs. 16,57,167.55 from the petitioner under
Rule 16(7) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner alleges that the order is
illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Rule 16 of the Control Order,
2016, as it was passed without considering the petitioner's
submissions, affording an opportunity for hearing, or conducting
physical verification of the shop. The background facts reveal that
Respondent No. 3 allotted the fair price shop at Manikpur, Korba
to the petitioner on 12.09.2019. The petitioner took charge of the
shop but did not receive the stock of essential food grains,
including rice, salt, and sugar, which was not deposited by the
earlier agency. Despite bringing this to the attention of
Respondent No. 3, no action was taken. Respondent No. 4
submitted a report on the shortage of essential food grains, based
on which Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner on 02.05.2024. Although the petitioner submitted a
detailed reply, the shop was suspended on 27.12.2024, without
considering the reply or conducting physical verification, contrary
to Rule 16(3) of the Control Order, 2016. The petitioner
challenged the suspension order before this Court, which was set
aside on 16.01.2025."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.
4 inspected the petitioner's shop and prepared an inspection
report alleging shortage of essential good grains, which is contrary
to Rule 9(9) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016, and submitted the report to Respondent
No. 3. Respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner dated 03.03.2025, in which the only allegation was that
the petitioner self-help group is having shortage of essential food
grains. It is stated that in response to the notice, the petitioner
submitted a reply stating that there was a shortage of essential
food grains from the earlier agency, which had not been updated
in the online server. Additionally, due to the AePDS update in July,
server or technical issues led to manual distribution, which was
not reflected in the online server. Therefore, physical verification is
necessary to verify the facts. He further submits that without
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the shop was
suspended.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed and
requires no interference by this Hon'ble Court. It is further
submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable, as the
suspension order in question falls within the jurisdiction of the
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who is the prescribed authority
under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2016, and is required to conduct the necessary enquiry in
accordance with the said Order.
7. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and also on various occasions by this Hon'ble High Court,
including the recent decision in the matter of Sitara Women Self
Help Group, Chamanpur vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
in WPC No. 4043/2022, decided on 16.04.2025, the learned State
counsel submits that an alternative remedy is available to the
petitioner under the law. If the petitioner approaches the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Collector by way of an
appeal along with an application for interim relief, the concerned
authorities are at liberty to consider and decide the same in
accordance with law.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
material available on record.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and also
taking into account the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court, particularly the recent
decision in Sitara Women Self Help Group, Chamanpur vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WPC No. 4043/2022,
decided on 16.04.2025, this Court directs the petitioner to
approach the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the
Collector by way of an appeal along with an application for interim
relief within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. The concerned appellate authorities shall consider
and decide the interim application filed by the petitioner within a
maximum period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such
application.
10. It is further made clear that the petitioner is required to approach
the SDO(R) on or before 10th May, 2025.
11. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is emphatically directed to
decide the appeal and the application for interim relief
expeditiously.
12. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present
petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shayna
