Chattisgarh High Court
Khadya Suraksha Poshan Evam Upbhokta ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:32521
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 3604 of 2025
Khadya Suraksha Poshan Evam Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,
Dindo Through President Arvind Yadav S/o Shri Naresh Prasad Yadav
Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Dindo Block Ramchandrapur
District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supply
And Consumer Protection Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur,
Post Office Rakhi District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Collector Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj
(C.G.)
3 - Sub Divisinonal Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj District -
Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)
4 - Assistatn Food Inspector Ramanujganj District - Balrampur -
Ramanujganj (C.G.)
5 - Jai Gondvana Mahila Swayam Sahayta Samuh Vimlapur Through
Its President Village Vimlapur Block Ramchandrapur District -
Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, PL 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 14/07/2025 Heard.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the following relief(s) :
"10.1 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the respondent no. 3 which is contrary to the clause 16(3) of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) order 2016 in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop in accordance with law.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice"
2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition is being made against the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby without giving opportunity of hearing and without conducting regular enquiry as also without following the due process of law the allotment of Fair Price Shop of the petitioner has been cancelled and the respondent no. 5 has been directed to run the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner contrary to clause 16(3) of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) order 2016 (for brevity, "the 3 order 2016") The copy of order dated 29.05.2025 is filled herewith as Annexure P-1 for its kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. The fact of the case inter-alia is that, in the year 2019 the petitioner self-help group was allotted a fair price shop after following the due process of law and thereafter the petitioner was running the fair price shop continuously without any complaint but due to malafide intention under the change of Government and political pressure, on the basis of false and frivolous complaint regarding irregularities, the respondent no. 4 conducted enquiry behind the back of petitioner and submitted enquiry report to the respondent no. 3 stating that, during the physical verification, the respondent no. 4 demanded Chana and Shakkar to the shopkeeper of the petitioner's fair price shop then the shopkeeper told that, there is no stock of Chana and Shakkar in the shop. The respondent no. 4 has also submitted report that, 98.14 Quintal rice, 7.09 Quintal Shakkar 9.54 Quintal Chana were found to be shortage during physical verification whereas the ration card holders are being received food items every month regularly but without verifying the ration-card of the villagers the respondent no. 4 has submitted enquiry report to the respondent no. 3. Only on the basis of enquiry report, the respondent no. 3 has cancelled the allotment of fair price shop of petitioner without verifying and conducting enquiry to ascertain correct and actual fact. Hence, this petition.
4
3. Counsel for the State would submit that on the basis of report of the respondent No.4- Assistant Food Inspector, impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) has been passed by the SDO(R). Therefore, the order is well merited and the petitioner do not deserve any relief.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
5. Taking into consideration the fact of the case and further considering the order impugned passed by respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, it is stated that "lR;kiu ds nkSjku 98-14 Doh- pkoy] 'kDdj 7-09 Doh] ued 7-49 Doh- de ik;k x;k Fkk] tks fd orZeku esa iwfrZ fd;k tk pqdk gSA" Therefore, the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference.
6. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant