VF? © IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.IC)No. Q 1:7 /2oo9 / Adim Jati Sevva Sahakari Samiti, A Maryadit (LAMPS) Jagdalpur Kumharpara Jagdalpur, Through its President Smt. Neelama, W/o Shri T.V.Ravi, Aged about 28 years, Distt. Bastar—(C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies and D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur— (C.G.) 2. The Collector (Food Section), Distt. Bastar Jagdalpur /3. The Food Controller, Distt. Bastar Jagdalpur i4. The Manager, District Vipnan Sahakari Samiti, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar — (C.G.) Consumer Protection, OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBITION CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 327 OF 2009 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Maryadit (LAMPS) Jagdalpur Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Sunii Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. PETITIONER RESPOND’ENTS Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 & 2. Shri Subhash Yadav, ‘Advocate for respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 02m day of July, 2010) 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P-1), whereby two fair pri'c’e shops situated at Shanti Nagar ward and Atal Bihar Bajpai ward at Jagdalpur was taken away from the petitioner and attached to Pravirchandra ward, Jagdalpur allotted to respondent No.4. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was allotted a fair price shop situated in village Asna by order dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure' P-2). By order dated 14.6.2008 (Annexure P-3), another fair price shop situated at Atal Bihari Bajpai ward No.32 was attached to the petitioner. The third fair price shop situated at Motilal Nehru ward No.15 was also allotted to the petitioner by order dated 22.7.2008 and as such, in total, three fair price shops were allotted. 3) On 28.12.2008, the petitioner made an application (Annexure P—5) for allotment a fair price shop situated at Atal Bihari Bajpai ward to the petitioner. Two fair price shops situated at Bastar and SonarpaJ'IjWere allotted to respondent ’ No.4 by order dated 13.4.2006 and by another order dated \ I r‘t 13/14.4.2006 one more fair price shop situated at Pravirchandra ward No.1 was also aiiotted to respondent No.4. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) two fair price shops at Shanti Nagar ward and Atai Bihari Bajpai ward were directed to be attached to fair price shop at Pravirchandra ward, Jagdaipur, allotted to the respondent No.4 eariier. Thus this petition. Shri Otwani, iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that attachment of fair price shops with Pravirchandra ward No.1 aiiotted earlier to the respondent No.4 increases number of ailotment of fair price shops to respondent No.4 and as such the respondent No.4 was aiiotted five fair price/ shops at Pravirchandra ward, Jagdaipur, contrary to the statutory mandate. 5) Shri Roy, learned counsei appearing for the State and Shri Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 would submit that there was no allotment of fair price shops to respondent No.4 exceeding three fair price shops as fair price shops at Shanti Nagar ward and Atal Bihari Bajpai ward were attached to Pravirchandra ward No.1, allotted earlier to respondent No.4. There is no dispute with regard to the provisions of law and respondent No.4 was not allotted more than three shops as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6) The amendment restricting the allotment of three fair price shops was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5265/2006. This Court upheld the validity of the said clause as under, while disposing ofthe petition on 9.3.2007. “The policy decision of the State in imposing ceiling of maximum three numbers of fair price shops to one agency is not opposed to the pub/i0 po/icy and as such is not open to judicial review" ii' .l'v y. \ j/ 7r” 7) Vide notification dated 21.3.2006, an amendment was made in sub—clause 2‘ (c) of clause 9 of Chhattisgarh Pubiic Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 (in short “Order, 2004”) to the’ effect that in allotment of fair price shops, in any case, the number will not exceed three fair price shops. Provisions are extracted as under :— “(2) (a) In district headquarters Fair Price Shops shall be allotted by Food Controller/Food Officer on approval of Collector and in remaining places of District, by sub divisional officer of sub division on approval of Collector. (b) in areas where more than one primary credit co- operative societies exists, allocation shall be made on the recommendations of the Deputy Registrar/ Assistant Registrar of district. l/i Recommendations shall be on the basis of economic status, ability to supply the food grain and other essential commodities to ration cardholders regularly, and such other relevant factors, which may be determined by the State Government from time to time. (c) Fair price shop shall be allotted to only those co- operative society which is constituted with the object of distributing or selling essential commodities to its member and to other people in the area. Ordinarily one fair price shop shall be allotted to any agency for its area of'operation but to ensure regular supplies of essential commodities to ration cardholders, authorized officer may allot more than one fair price shop to any agency by assigning specific reason, but in any case the number will not exceed three fair price shops. (d) For allotment of fair price shop an advertisement shall be published in local newspapers and information of it shall be given to concerned urban local bodies and Gram Panchayat compulsorily” Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the‘pleading and the documents appended thereto, it appears that the respondentsrNoJ to 3 have devised a new method of allotment of fair price shop to defeat the purpose of provisions of clause 9 (2) (c) of the Order, 2004. Nytx ~ ‘Q‘ Ashok \79 /70 Actually more than three fair price shops are assigned /aliotted to respondent No.4, which is contrary to the provisions of law, as enshrined in clause 9(2)(c) of the Order, 2004. Thus, the method of attaching the fair price shops to other shops is not proper and legal. However, ensuring uninterrupted distribution to the consumers, the State authorities are directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner and other similarly situated applicants to allot fair price shops situated at Atal Bihari Bajpai ward as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six weeks from today. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Costs easy ‘ i Sd/_ Judge fr:;x~._ Satish K. Agnihotri l 7 7 l