LSingle Bench; Hon'ble Mr'. Justice Dhirendra Mishm) W.P.(C) No.5535/2009 (Pe’rh‘ion U/A 226 of The Consfifu‘rion of India) PETITIONER Vs RESPONDENTs Basmr' Zila Thok UpbhokTa Bhanda Maryadi’r (Whoie Sade Consumer Coopera‘rive Sociefy) Jagdaipur, DisTric’r—Basmr‘ (CG) Regis’rered Under fhe 6.6. Cooperm‘ive Societies Acf, 1960, Vide Regd. NoDR/BTR/674, Dafed 21.10.1976' Through i‘rs Assisfam‘ Manager, P.N. Mishra, agedi abou’r 45 years, S/o Shri RA. Mishm, office CIT Nayapar‘a, Jagdalpur, Distric’r Basfar (Chhaffisgar'h) . STaTe of ChhaTfisgar‘h, Through: The Principal SecreTary, DeparTmenT of Food and Civil Suppiies and Consumer Profec’rion Deparfmenf, D.K.S. Bhawan, Man’rmlaya, Raipur (Chha’n‘isgarh) . The Coiiecfor (Food Section), DisTric1 Bas‘rar', Jagdalpur (Chha’r’risgarh) 3. The Food ConTroHer, Disfric‘r Bastar, Jagdalpur (Chhaftisgarh) 4. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur', DisTric’r Basfar‘ (ChhaH’isgarh) 5. The Primary Un-employed coopera’rive Socie’ry Maryadi’r, Through: Manager, Village Lohandiguda, Dis’rricT—Basfar,, Jagadalpur (ChhaTfisgarh) resent: . Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B. Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the Sfafe. Oral Order (24.09. 2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.8.2009 (Annexure P—l) & 19.8.2009 (Annexure P—Z) whereby the petitioner‘s fair price shop at Bade—dharaur, Lohandiguda has been cancelled andithe some has been allotted to respondent No.5 vide order of Annexure P—1. ”2. Learned counsel forjhe petitioner submits that aforesaid orders have been passed without following the procedure prescribed under the 6.6. ruuu, I r P rpm Public Dis’rribu’rion SysTem (Confrol) Order, 2004 (for shor‘r ‘Order‘, 2004') as Clause 16 (3) & (5) of The Order, 2004 clearly s’ripuIaTes fhm‘ penaHy can be imposed only after issuance of show cause notice of one mom‘h To The concerned fair price shop. . On fhe ofher hand, learned counsel for The STaTe submi’rs Tha‘r The order impugned is appeolable under Clause‘18 of fhe Order, 2004 and as such, The peli‘h'oner has efficacious alfernafive remedy of preferring an appeal before fhe Collec‘ror for redressal of The grievance raised in fhis pe’rifion. . Having heard learned counsel for The parTies, having regard To The specific provision conTained in Clause 18 of The Order, 2004, I am of The opinion ThaT The peTiTioner cannoT be permiTTed To file This peTiTion wiThouT exercising remedy of appeal under Clause—18 of The Order, 2004. . Accordingly, The peTiTion is dismissed wiTh liberTy To avail The efficacious alTernaTive remedy available To The peTiTioner.l 8d]— l ‘ Dhirendm Mishra Judge