Smt. Leela Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No.3885 of 2019

¶5

1. Smt. Leela Bai Sahu W/o Shri Khem Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bahinga, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, President Of Jay Maa Karma Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samooh Bahinga, (Government Fair Price Shop Village Panchayat Bahinga), Block Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Bhuneshwar Gan Seller Jay Maa Karma Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samooh Bahinga, (Government Fair Price Shop Village Panchayat Bahinga), Block Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Collector (Food Department) Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Food Department) Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Assistant Food Officer Bemetara (Food Inspector), Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. Amarchand Gayakwad S/o Shatruhan Aged About 32 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Karhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6. Sandeep Kumar Khare S/o Sanat Kumar Aged About 30 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Karhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶14

7. Sant Kumar S/o Namdas Aged About 32 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Karhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

8. Naindas S/o Khedu Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Karhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶16

9. Santudas S/o Namdas Aged About 38 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Karhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Swajeet Singh Upveja, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.5 to 9 : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

05.03.2024

Heard.

-2-

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶25

“ 10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned stay order dated 03.10.2019 passed by respondent No.2.

¶26

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record for kind perusal from the respondent authorities.

¶27

10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”

¶28

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners were running a Government Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System at VillagePanchayat Bahinga, Block-Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.).

¶29

3. Petitioner No.1 is the President, whereas, petitioner No. 2 is the salesman of Jay Maa Karma Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samooh Bahinga. The petitioners were allotted a Government Fair Price Shop. On a complaint made by respondents No. 5 to 9, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and later on, the order of allotment of the Fair Price Shop was placed under suspension by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 03.11.2017. The order of respondent No. 3 was challenged by filing an appeal before the Collector and the same was affirmed vide order dated 25.01.2018. Both the orders were challenged before the State Government and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2018. The petitioners preferred WPC No. 2974 of 2018 against the order passed by the State Government on the ground that in a cryptic manner the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 set aside the order and remitted back the matter to the State Government to decide it afresh. The State Government passed a detailed order on 28.01.2019 and the matter was remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/respondent No.3 to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue) after affording due opportunity of

¶30

3

¶31

hearing to the parties, passed an order on 17.07.2019 and found the allegations made against the petitioners false and baseless. The respondents No. 5 to 9 who were the original complainants, preferred an appeal before the Collector against the order dated 17.07.2019 and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.10.2019 admitted the appeal and granted an interim order in favour of the complainants. The concerned Collector stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in favour of the petitioners and against that order, the present petition has been preferred.

¶32

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that 177 persons had made a complaint against the petitioners due to an ulterior motive. He would further argue that the allegations made against the petitioners were found false and fabricated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 17.07.2019 and respondents No. 5 to 9 had no locus to challenge that order before the Collector. He would also argue that during the pendency of this petition, some of the villagers have again made a complaint against the petitioners just to harass them. He would contend that one criminal case was registered against one of the complainants namely, Amar Chand Gayaikwad for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and that is the sole reason to make a complaint against the petitioners. He would lastly submit that the order passed by the Collector dated 03.10.2019 may be quashed.

¶33

5. On the other hand, Mr. Upveja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well as Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 to 9 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Ruparel. They would submit that several complaints were made against the petitioners before the various authorities. They would further submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer

¶34

-4-

¶35

(Revenue) took cognizance and inquired into the matter and in the first round of litigation, the fair price shop allotted to the petitioners was placed under suspension. They would argue that the matter travelled up to the State Government and ultimately the matter was remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. They would further argue that initially a complaint was made by the private respondents, therefore, they were the necessary parties and they had the right to challenge the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated 17.07.2019. They would also argue that 177 residents of the village had made a complaint against the petitioners with regard to irregularity in the distribution of food grains. It is contended that the matter is still pending before the Collector and only the effect and operation of the order of restoration of the status of the petitioners has been stayed by the Collector and thus, the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶37

7. From a perusal of the documents annexed to this petition, it is apparent that on the complaint of the residents of the village, a show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) against the petitioners and the fair price shop allotted to the petitioners was placed under suspension. The matter travelled up to the State Government and thereafter the matter was remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The SubDivisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 17.07.2019 passed an order in favour of the petitioners and found the complaint false, frivolous and baseless. Respondents No.5 to 9/complainants preferred an appeal before the Collector against the order dated 17.07.2019 and the Collector vide order dated 03.10.2019 stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 17.07.2019

¶38

5

¶39

where there was a direction to restore the status/position of the petitioners.

¶40

8. From a perusal of the order sheet of the Court of the Collector, it is evident that the matter is still pending before the Collector. With regard to the locus of respondents No. 5 to 9, on their complaint, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, therefore, they had the right to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). The arguments advanced by Mr. Ruparel with regard to malafide action on the part of one of the complainants appear to be baseless as about 177 persons made complaints against the petitioners. If out of the five complainants, there is some dispute between the petitioners and one of the complainants, the same cannot be a ground to deny the entire allegations made against the petitioners. On their instance, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr. Ruparel are not acceptable.

¶41

9. As the matter is pending before the Collector and only an interim order has been passed against the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶42

10. Further considering the fact that the matter is still pending before the Collector since 2019, the concerned Collector is directed to conclude the proceedings of the pending appeal after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

11. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶46

Rekha

Smt. Leela Bai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Leela Bai Sahu 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

Rakesh Kumar Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagat Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxman Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sangeeta Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Quality Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Chandra Kiran Rohledar Vs State of Chhattisgarh