[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jai Maa Saraswati Mahila Swa Sahayata ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:18489
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2938 of 2025
1 - Jai Maa Saraswati Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Ward No. 16,
Village Parsada, Durg Chhattisgarh Through Its President, Leela Sahu,
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
W/o Den Kumar Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Parsada,
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
Kumhari, Tahsil - Bhilai-3, P.S. Kumhari, District - Durg Chhattisgarh
BEOHAR
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh
3 - Food Controller Office Of Collector (Food Branch), District Durg
Chhattisgarh
4 - Naveen Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Shop I.D. No.
431006002 Through Its Manager, Naveen Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta
Bhandar, Parsada, District - Durg Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
22.04.2026
1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
06.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the fair price
shop allotted to the petitioner has been attached to the shop of
Respondent No. 4 on the allegation of irregularities, without
affording proper opportunity of hearing and without following the
procedure prescribed under law.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered women
self-help group engaged in running a fair price shop under the
provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control)
Order, 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the shop was
allotted to it vide order dated 29.01.2021 and was being run in
accordance with the prescribed norms and guidelines without any
complaint. It is further submitted that certain complaints were
made against the petitioner and a show cause notice dated
03.04.2025 was issued, to which the petitioner submitted a
detailed reply denying the allegations. However, without properly
considering the reply and without conducting any fair enquiry, the
impugned order dated 06.06.2025 has been passed attaching the
petitioner's shop with that of Respondent No. 4.
3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-
"10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire record pertaining
to the case of the petitioner.
10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned order date 06/06/2025
(Annexure P-1).
10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to direct the respondent authorities to allow the
petitioner to continue to run the fair price shop
allotted to them.
10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
may deems fit and proper may also be
awarded to the petitioner including the cost of
the petition,"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural
justice. It is contended that no proper opportunity of hearing was
granted before passing the order. It is further submitted that
though an alternative remedy is available under the provisions of
the Control Order, 2016, the petitioner has approached this Court
on account of illegality in the action of the respondents.
5. Learned State counsel submits that an efficacious alternative
remedy is available to the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and the petitioner
ought to have approached the competent authority, namely the
concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, for redressal of his grievance. It
is further submitted that proceedings have already been initiated
before the competent authority and, as per instructions, the shop
of the petitioner has since been reinstated; however, due to
pendency of the present petition, further orders, including
suspension, have been passed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute raised in the
present petition pertains to issues which can appropriately be
adjudicated by the competent authority under the provisions of the
Control Order, 2016. It is well settled that when an efficacious
alternative remedy is available, this Court would ordinarily refrain
from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
8. In the facts of the present case, since the competent authority has
already initiated proceedings, it would be appropriate to relegate
the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available under law.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to
the petitioner to approach the concerned competent authority for
redressal of his grievance in accordance with the provisions of the
Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is
expected that if such proceedings are initiated/are pending, the
competent authority shall consider and decide the same
expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha
