Mukti Dal Women Self Help Group Jhalariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:55047

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 32 of 2022

¶6

1 - Mukti Dal Women Self Help Group Jhalariya Through- President Smt. Seetapai W/o Dharamjeet Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, President Of Mukti Dal Women Self Help Group Jhalariya / Operator Of Govt. Fair Price ShopJhalariya R/o Village- Jhalariya P.S. And Tahsil - Balrampur Distt. BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.)

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New- Raipur Distt.-Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Collector (Food Department) Balrampur, Distt.- BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balrampur Distt. Balrampur, Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶12

4 - The Food Inspector Balrampur Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Govt. Faire Price Shop Padhi Block And Tahsil Balrampur Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶14

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.14 14:28:12 +0530

¶15

--- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Intervener : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

12/11/2025

¶20

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 Annexure P-1 issued by respondent No.3.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to allow to continue of the petitioner group for running the fair price shop of village - Jhalariya, District Balrampur (C.G.).

¶23

10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was allotted government fair price shop by following due process of law. Subsequently a show cause notice was issued to petitioner alleging that there was irregularity in running fair price shop. Petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice, however, without following due process of law and considering the enquiry report in its entirety, impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed suspending the shop of petitioner and handing it over to the respondent No.5 temporarily for its operation.

¶25

Learned counsel for intervenor opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that in inspection report of shop of petitioner, irregularity has been pointed out by the authorities and accordingly under the clauses of Control Order, 2016, appropriate order is passed vide (Annexure P-1).

¶26

3

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the grounds raised in this petition, the State would be appropriate authority to reply the grounds raised therein, however, the State has not filed reply. Petitioner is still running fair price shop pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 06.01.2022.

¶28

Learned State counsel submits that he may be granted further time to file reply. He also submits that petitioner is having alternate remedy of filing appeal under Clause 18 of the Control Order, 2016.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.12.2021 by which the order of suspension of fair price shop was passed and further directing respondent No.2 to operate fair price shop temporarily. The order was challenged in this petition and when the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 06.01.2022, this Court considering the grounds raised in this petition has passed interim order of staying the effect and operation of impugned order (Annexure P-1).

¶31

Undisputedly, pursuant to the interim order dated 06.01.2022, petitioner is operating fair price shop allotted to it since then about more than three years and 10 months has already been elapsed.

¶32

In the aforementioned facts of the case, grounds raised by learned counsel for respondents that petitioner is having alternate remedy of appeal, I am not inclined to continue with this writ petition further and to dispose of this writ petition reserving liberty to petitioner to file

¶33

4

¶34

appeal under Clause 18 of the Control Order, 2016 before appellate forum against order impugned.

¶35

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of at this stage permitting petitioner to file appeal as provided under Clause-18 of the Control Order, 2016 within further period of four weeks from today and if such appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same on merits without considering the period of limitation.

¶36

Till the decision of appellate authority on the appeal to be filed by petitioner, interim order passed by this Court on 06.01.2022 of stay on effect and operation of the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) shall remain in force.

¶37

If appeal is not filed within period specified, interim protection granted shall loose its efficacy.

¶38

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶40

Balram

Mukti Dal Women Self Help Group Jhalariya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukti Dal Women Self Help Group Jhalariya 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Singhania Vs Union of India

Ajay Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Das Mahant, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vrishbhanu Kumar Tandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishankar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh