U y WJK’ IN THE HIGH COURT GF EUQICATURE AT BILASPUR ( CHHATTISGARH l a w. P. N0. {141% 2905 PETmoNERs /1. Phanendra Kumar Mishra, 5/0 Late Shri Narsingh Prasad Mishra, aged about 43 Years, Member, Sahakari Vipanan Samiti Maryadit, Bemetara, & R/o Bemetara, Tah. Bemetara District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Ajit Kumar Chhabda, S/o Late Omprakash Chhabda, aged 30 Years, Member, Sahakari Vipanan Samiti Maryadit, Bemetara and R/o Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS x RESPONDENTS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary,Department of Food & CiviiSupplies & Consumer . Protection, Mantraiaya, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur [Chhattisgarh] iqtk Director, Directorate of Food V ‘n r9 / #4 exgg,r erg? i &Civn3upplie‘s Protection, Raipur & Consumer (CG) s W \ 3. Coiiector, District Durg (C.G.) 4. Parmeshwari Prathmik Upbhokta Sahakari Bhandar, Sanjay Nagar, Supeia, Bhiiai District Raipur [ChhéttisgarM CONSTITUTION WRIT PETITION OF UNDER INDIA FOR ARTICLE ISSUANCE i26l227 OF WRIT OF THE IN N The petitioners, above—named, most respectfully submits as under: ja HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1242 of 2005 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocate fo‘r the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. lto 3. ORDER (Passed on 08‘}; day ofDecember, 201 1) . The petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 17.02.2005 and also, the order dated 28.02.2005 (Annexure P/l) issued by the Collector, Durg, whereby the respondent No. 4 was handed over the charge of the fair price shops for distribution of essential commodities viz. food grains, sugar, salt and Kerosene, after canceling the order passed in favour of the Sahkari Vipnan Samiti Maryadit, Bemetara (for short, ‘the Society’). Copy of the order dated 17.02.2005 has not been frled in this petition. 2. The petitioners claim to be the share holders of the Society, which was the lead society engaged in distribution of essential commodities like food grains,_sugar, salt and kerosene under the Public Distribution i System. It appears that on the basis of some complaint, pursuant to the decision dated 17.02.2005, the work of lead society, Sahkari Vipnan Samiti Maryadit, Bemetara, was handed over to the respondent N0. 4 until further orders. g3 PETITIONERS : Phanendra Kumar Mishra & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. V29 Shri Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the handing over of the work of distribution of essential commodities to the respondent No. 4 is arbitrary and contrary to the scheme 0f distribution as the impugned order has been passed on political consideration. On the other hand, Shri Sao, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that the society, of which the petitioners claim to be the share holders, has failed to perform its duty and the share holders have no locus standi to challenge the impugned order dated 28.02.2005 (Annexure P/l). Shri Sao further contends that the petitioners, in para 5.1 of the petition have stated that they are the members of Sahakari Vipnan Samiti Maryadit, Durg, Whereas they claim to be the members of Sahkari Vipnan Samiti Maryadit, Bemetara, in the cause title. Be that as it may, no order of allotment of fair price shop was made in favour of any individual members. If there was any grievance, the Society itself ought to have come forward to question the same. The petitioners, Who claim to be the share holders of the Vipnan Samiti, have also not produced any document whereunder they have been authorised to take up the cause ofthe Society. Further, no other ground has been raised in this petition except that it was an arbitrary action. The impugned order was passed only after issuance of proper show cause notice on 30.09.2004 (Annexure R/2) and aher considering the response of the Society (Annexure R/3). Thus, it cannot be held that there is any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order whereby the work of distribution of essential x T"\.\% ‘ \6’7 commodities have been handed over to the respondent N0. 4, having regard to the nature of work wherein fairness is required. The impugned order dated 28.02.2005 is just, proper and has been passed after affording full opportunity of hearing. Thus, no interference is warranted. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. e-_...,/‘ _,¥* Sci/- 8. No order asto costs. :smsh KAgnihotri} a Judge v. i \ .v‘ KV\ L