[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Chandraprakash Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026
Digitally signed by
YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date: 2026.03.28
14:31:40 +0530
1
2026:CGHC:14667
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2574 of 2020
1 - Chandraprakash Kashyap S/o Late Shri Heeralal Kashyap Aged
About 45 Years Occupation- Agriculturist, Resident Of Village- Mohtara
Kurmi, Post - Devarhat, P.S. Lalpur, Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli
(Chhattisgarh)
2 - Prabhudas Ghirre S/o Late Shri Ridhwa Ghirre Aged About 60 Years
Occupation- Agriculturist, Resident Of Village- Mohtara Kurmi, Post -
Devarhat, P.S. Lalpur, Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector - Mungeli, District- Mungeli
(Chhattisgarh)
2 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lormi, District - Mungeli
(Chhattisgarh)
3 - The Food Controral/food Officer Mungeli, District- Mungeli
(Chhattisgarh)
4 - The Food Inspector Mungeli, District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Jai Maa Durga, Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samooh Through Its
President Sunita Kulmitra Jai Maa Durga Mahila Swa-Sahayata
Samooh Mohtarakurmi, District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer
No.1 to 4
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
27.03.2026
1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following relief(s) :-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate orders/directions/
writ, towards the respondent no. 1 and 2 to
consider and decide the objection/ complaint
made by the petitioners (Annexure P-1 to P-3)
within stipulated period.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief, as it may
deem fit.
10.3 Cost of the petition may also be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
poor villagers and permanent residents of Village Mohtara Kurmi,
Post Devarhat, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli
(C.G.), and are holders of Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration cards,
thereby being entitled to receive essential food commodities under
the Public Distribution System (PDS). It is further submitted that
respondent No. 5, who is the office bearer of Jai Maa Durga
Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samooh, is entrusted with the responsibility
of distribution of essential commodities such as rice, wheat, salt,
sugar, kerosene oil and other notified food items to the eligible
beneficiaries of the village. However, in gross violation of the
duties cast upon him, respondent No. 5 has failed to discharge his
obligations in a fair and transparent manner.
3. Learned counsel submits that during the months of July and
August, respondent No. 5 deliberately withheld distribution of food
grains and essential commodities to the beneficiaries, causing
grave hardship to the petitioners and other villagers. Despite
repeated objections raised by the villagers before respondent No.
5, who is acting as Director/Secretary of the said Samooh, no
heed was paid and the grievances were willfully ignored. It is also
contended that the petitioners and other villagers submitted written
complaints/objections before respondent No. 2 on 08.09.2020 and
thereafter before respondent No. 1 on the same date, bringing to
their notice the illegal acts of respondent No. 5 in misappropriating
PDS food grains and denying rightful distribution to beneficiaries.
However, no action whatsoever has been taken by the authorities
concerned. He lastly submits that even thereafter, a detailed
complaint dated 14.09.2020 was submitted before respondent No.
1 seeking immediate intervention and appropriate action against
respondent No. 5, along with a direction to ensure regular supply
of food grains to the beneficiaries. Despite such repeated
representations, the respondent authorities have failed to take any
corrective steps, thereby forcing the petitioners to approach this
Court by way of the present writ petition and prays that necessary
directions is to be required to be issued.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners and submits that the present writ petition is wholly
misconceived, devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed at
the threshold. It is submitted that prior to the filing of the present
petition, a similar complaint dated 01.06.2020 was made by one
Vidhyanand Chandrakar, upon which the competent authorities
conducted due verification and found prima facie substance in the
allegations against respondent No. 5. Consequently, a show cause
notice dated 22.06.2020 was issued to the said respondent, who
in turn submitted his reply before the competent authority.
5. Learned State counsel further submits that after considering the
reply submitted by respondent No. 5 and following due procedure
as contemplated under the applicable provisions of the
Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, the
competent authority passed an order dated 31.08.2020
suspending the agreement/contract of respondent No. 5. It is
emphasized that the said action was taken strictly in accordance
with law and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing. It is
further contended that respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal
against the order of suspension before the Collector, which came
to be dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2020, thereby affirming the
action taken by the authorities. Thereafter, in order to ensure
uninterrupted supply of essential commodities to the beneficiaries,
the fair price shop in question was attached to nearby shops from
time to time and eventually the operation of the said shop was
handed over to another eligible self-help group, namely Satnam
Mahila Self Help Group, Boirpara, which is presently running the
shop.
6. Learned counsel for the State also submits that respondent No. 5
had earlier approached this Court by filing WPC No. 3334/2020,
wherein this Court vide order dated 16.03.2021, had set aside the
subsequent order dated 31.10.2020 on the ground of lack of
power of review with the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, it is
submitted that in compliance of the said order, the competent
authority has taken appropriate steps in accordance with law and
the functioning of the fair price shop has been duly regulated to
ensure supply of essential commodities to the beneficiaries. As
such, it is lastly submitted that the grievances raised by the
petitioners do not survive, inasmuch as timely and appropriate
action has already been taken by the respondent authorities. It is
thus contended that the allegations levelled by the petitioners are
baseless and misconceived, and no interference is warranted by
this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
8. From a careful and comprehensive perusal of the material
available on record, including the pleadings of the parties,
documents annexed therewith and, in particular, the order passed
by this Court in WPC No. 3334/2020 dated 16.03.2021, it is
manifest that the issue relating to the functioning and
management of the fair price shop in question has already been
the subject matter of judicial scrutiny. By virtue of the said order,
this Court had examined the legality of the action taken by the
authorities and issued appropriate directions in accordance with
law. It further emerges that pursuant to the earlier proceedings,
the competent authorities have taken consequential steps to
regulate the operation of the fair price shop so as to ensure that
the distribution of essential commodities under the Public
Distribution System is not disrupted. The record also indicates that
interim arrangements were made by attaching the shop to nearby
fair price shops and subsequently entrusting its execution to
another eligible self-help group, thereby safeguarding the interests
of the beneficiaries. In view of such developments, it cannot be
said that the grievance projected by the petitioners continues to
subsist in its original form or that there is any present inaction on
the part of the authorities warranting interference. Thus, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the controversy raised herein
already stands substantially addressed and governed by the
earlier order and subsequent administrative action taken in
compliance thereof.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, and having regard to the fact that the
issues raised in the present writ petition do not survive for
adjudication in view of the developments noted hereinabove, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is made clear
that the dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the
petitioners from ventilating any subsisting or fresh grievance, if
any, in accordance with law. It is observed that in the event the
petitioners are still facing any difficulty in receiving their entitled
benefits under the Public Distribution System, or if any irregularity
persists at the ground level, they shall be at liberty to approach the
competent authority by submitting a detailed and specific
representation along with all supporting documents. Upon such
representation being filed, the concerned authority shall consider
the same objectively, in a fair and transparent manner, and pass a
reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with the
applicable statutory provisions and governing guidelines, after
affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
10. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the instant writ petition
stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/--
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
