^ G^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p. ro No.^/3tT/2oii PETITIONER B. C. M. Colliery Karmachari Prathamik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Through: The Secretary Vijay Narayan Pathak, S/o. Late Rambachan Pathak Aged aboutss years R/o. Welfare Colony, Khongapani Tahsil: manendragarh Dist.: Korea (CG). RESPONDENTS :1 \^^c ^i^^ ...•••"^'.^•^ ^/'" ^x Y^ VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretaiy, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The Food Controller Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Raipur (CG). The Collector, Dist.: Korea (CG). 4. The Food Officer, Korea, Dist.: Korea (CG). 5. '' The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, Dist.: Korea (CG), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA 1. Particulars QfTh_e_PetitiQner: 'As per the cause title. RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGAKH AT BILASPUR WKTT PETmON (0 No. 5135 of201 1 B.M.C.Colliay Kannaehari VTRSUS State ofCtiliattisgarfa & Ofliers. PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF DMDIA SB: Hon'ble Siiri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Shd N.N.itoy witfa Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate fdt Ae pstitioaer. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for ths State/respondents. (Passed oa 05°day ofSqitsmbsr, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 12.08.2011 (Aanexure P/l) passed by Ifae Sub Divisional Qfiicer (Revenue) MaaenAagarh, District Koria, whereby &e Ucence for runaing fhe fair price sltop has been Shri Roy, leamed counsel appearmg fsx Ifae pedtiona suhmits fhat the order iiapugned herein, is eonttary to the provisions of clause 16 oftfae Chliattisgarh Public Distnbution System (Control) Ordsr, 2004 (far short 'the Order. 2004'). On the ofher hand, Shri Sao, leamed Govemment Advccate appearini for tfae State/respondente submits tfiat clause 18 of fhe Qrder prcwides for an appeal to tfae effect that if any person is aggrieved by aa oalsT of fhe designated officer, he may appeal to flie Collector/Additional Shri Roy next suhmite fliat fhe SDO(R), has passed fte ittq?ugned order taakins certaia observations with reaard to filiaa of d»eearlier petition which was dismissed by du8 CtHirt. Thus. the CoBector mav aot decide (he case indqiendently without being iafluenced by flie observations made by the SDO (R). Since an altemative aid efficacious remedy of appe^. is available to the petitioaer, liberty is reserved to be petitioaer to take recourse to clause 18 of the Qrder. The CoBector is slirected to ignore the observatioas made by Ae SDO which may not be rdevant for the purpose of deciBioa of tfae appeaL and decide tfae appeai in accordance wifh law, an its own 6. Thus, the petition ig disinissed wifh Kberty, as afoiestated, ifso advised. Amlt Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /