Smt. Kamala Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2024:CGHC:35286

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 219 of 2021

¶6

Smt. Kamala Chandra W/o Nohar Chand Chandra Aged About 42 Years President, Jai Mai Shringar Mahila Swah Sahayata Samuh, Gram Panchayat Singhra, Tehsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.09.11 14:35:17 +0530

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Sonauram Chandra S/o Shivnandan Chandra R/o Singhra, Tehsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶11

The Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa (CG).

¶12

The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (CG)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Dubey, Advocate.

¶15

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board

¶16

10.09.2024

¶17

It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.3 and 4 have been impleaded in the cause title by way of IA No.3/2024 filed by the petitioner, which has been allowed by this Court today itself.

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case.

¶21

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate order/direction/writ dismissing the impugned appellate order (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.3 and reinstating the affairs of challenged shop to petitioner.

¶22

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant such other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶23

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is president of self-help group in the name of “Jai Maa Sarai Shringaar Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh” (for short the “Society”) which has been incorporated in terms of the provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973. The petitioner Society is running a fair price shop in Village Singra. However, after receiving some complaint regarding misappropriation of stocks maintained by the petitioner, on 14.10.2009 the respondent/SDO issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and also directed to present with the stock register and other records. The said show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner and interim order has been passed on 23.12.2019 whereby the fair shop awarded to the petitioner was suspended and same was handed over to Panchayat Mohtara. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3/Collector and by the impugned order

¶24

3 / 5

¶25

dated 15.01.2021 the respondent No.3 has upheld the in interim order passed on 23.12.2019. Hence, this petition has been filed.

¶26

At the outset, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector is appealable in view of the provisions contained under Section 18 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, according to which, any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may appeal to the State Government within a period of 30 days of receipt of the order and its decision shall be final.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition, however, he submits that principle of natural justice has not been complied with, therefore, grievance of the petitioner can be entertained in this writ petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that serious irregularities have been found while running fair price shop by the petitioner. He also submits that as no extra ordinary case is made out, this petition may not be entertained by this Court looking to the alternative remedy available under the statute.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provisions.

¶30

The High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in the case of K. Balajothi Vs. The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd and Ors [ WP (MD) No.10744/2019 reported in MANU/TN/1748/2022] has made following observation at Para 20:-

¶31

4 / 5

¶32

“20. This Court is of a strong opinion that institutional respects are to be maintained by the constitutional Courts. Whenever there is a provision for an appeal under the statute, without exhausting the remedies available under the statute, no writ petition can be entertained in a routine manner. Only on exceptional circumstances, the remedy of appeal can be waived, if there is a gross injustice or if there is a violation of fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution of India. Otherwise, all the aggrieved persons from and out of the order passed by the original authority is bound to approach the Appellate Authority. The Constitutional Courts cannot make an appeal provision as an empty formality. Every Appellate Authority created under the statute to be trusted in normal circumstances unless there is a specific allegation, which is substantiated in a writ proceedings. Thus, the institutional functions and exhausting the appeal remedies by the aggrieved persons, are to be enforced in all circumstances and writ proceedings can be entertained only on exceptional circumstances. Rule is to prefer an appeal and entertaining a writ is only an exception. This being the legal principles to be followed, this Court cannot entertain the writ petitions in a routine manner by waiving the remedy of appeal provided under the statute.”

¶33

In view of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the said alternative remedy. If the petitioner files an Appeal before the concerned authority in terms of Section 18 (2) of the

¶34

5 / 5

¶35

Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, within a period of 2 weeks of this order, the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law preferably within outer limit of six months from date of filing of such appeal.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶37

Certified copy of the impugned order/s along with annexures be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining its photocopy.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶40

Ajay

Smt. Kamala Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamala Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valiullah Riyaz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shreepat Mishra Vs M/S Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Moti Ram Sahu and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Tirkey Vs Geeta Agariya

Motilal Ratre Vs M/S Mahamaya Agrotech

Arvind Kumar Tirkey Vs Geeta Agariya