^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.276/2009 D.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.L. JHANWAR APPELLANT (.iB RESPONDENTS Jai Maa ^Khamdeshwari Swa Sahayata Mahila Samuha, Village Chauha Tahsil Masturi.District Bilaspur through its President Janki Devi Rai, Aged about 45 years, W/o Kaushal Prasad, R/o Village Chauha, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Versus 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary Food Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur 2 The Collector, Bilaspur 3 The Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur 4 Sakhi Sudha Mahila Swam Sahayat Samuha, Village Chauha, Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur through its present Smt.Krishna Bai, W/o Ramnath Khunte, Village . Chauha, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur 5 Jai Chandi Mahile Swa Sahayat Samuha, Village Chauha, Tahsil Masturi District Bilaspur 6 Mayavati Mahila Swa Sahayat Samuha Village Chauha, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HJGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHt ACT. 2006 Appearance Shri Parag Kotecha, Counsel for the appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate with Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyerforthe State. 'rS9'^ llr 7 W.A. No.276/2009 ORALORDER (14.09.2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J: Heard. ^- (2) The appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal against the order dated 31st August 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.3842/2009 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. ^ (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Respondent No.4 Sakhi Sudha Mahila Swam Sahayat Samuha, was allotted a Fair Price Shop under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004. The shop allotted to respondent No.4 was suspended by the Sub Divisional Officer on account of some reason and during the suspension of allotment of the shop to respondent No.4, the same was allotted to the appelianVpetitioner by order dated 22.4.2009. Respondent No.4 challenged the said order in appeal before the Collector under Clause 18 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004. The Collector allowed the appeal by order dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure P/8 in the writ petition) and the shop allotted to respondent No.4 was restored. Being aggrieved with the order dated 06.07.2009, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.3842/2009. The learned Single Judge heard the writ petition and held that the appellant/petitioner has efficacious and alternative remedy to file an appeal before the State Government under Clause 18 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 and declined to entertain the writ petition and passed the following order: W.A^NQ.276^009 \& "11. In view of the foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy, in accordance jwith taw, if so advised." (4) Learned counsel for the appellant argues that sub clause (2) of Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2004 does not provide for an appeal against the order of suspension of the shop by the concerned authority (Designated Officer), therefore, the appeal filed before the Collector was not maintainable and the order passed by the Collector was not in accordance with law. (5) The provisions of appeal have been given in Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Pubiic Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 which are quoted herein as under : "18 arfti (l) ^ 3te?I c^ 3Rpfcf >il^Mc()l^ ^t ?I?^, '1<ill4l<t)<iul W •< i'i*i4 ?f?t ^? ^ ^ pTOcT 3lf§R)^t^RT qft ^ I^A ^t thK.fdl^ ^ 'q^ra «qtean^T ffrf^T c^ ^RTfe?Tt ^ <ft(R r/ SfRlRcKI <t)<;l<tri'< ^t Sfte ?in ^Tn i (2) ^ff 3f^t ^ SRpfe ^RRT ^q ^cpH q?T SIRCT 3^@I ^ ^ tg ft!RT aite^t gRT c|?t -r^ ^ft '^t 4)l4dlil ^ s[fag srf^i gii^r inf^f c^ ^i f^jf ^ 'te ^5I<R^ ^ SPTRT ^ W^TT I cf)^<R^ ^ 3I1^?( ^t aifet ^lte CT^T fflfe ^ ^H ft;ft ^ "te ^FHI ^RR ?!)I 3(^ ^ ^NT aft^ ^m ft'°^ti 3i^Ft{ ?pn i ^.i'ii-iss,,^, ."% ^ •a-%^ .J W.A. No.276/2009 (s) Nt INit ariter qir fiww (R ^i? ^ ten ^n ^ra ^i? f^? sqfef oarf^i qrt ^t ^ qn ^Rkt^cw araw ;T ^ fen'Irar?t i (4) srftei ^ ftIR^ ^ v<^Rt ^ ^ 1E^, srftet sito^t !is ft^T^ w&mfe sriteiriN sn^T^rapte^ fi^ ^s 312.RT ^q ^W (3) ^ SRT'fa 3TO ^ ^^ ??I Sllcl^* ^y<W 3RW, f^ ull^ dcl), uft ^t ^ gt, WI^ ^ ?m i" (6) A perusal of sub clause (2) of Clause 18 would show that any action taken by the concerned Authority (Designated Officer), who has a power to distribute or cancel the Fair Price Shop, has been held to be appealable before the Collector. Certainly, that action would also include the action of suspension of Fair Price Shop. Therefore, the appeai before the Collector filed under Clause 18(2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 was competent and any order passed in the appeal by the Collector would be further appealable before the State Government under Clause 18(2) ofthe said Order, 2004. (7) tn view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (8) The appeal has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge shyna