V, ? ^^:^y'^^ ?><6';.....--" o'-k'- IN THE HI6H (;OURTOF^HHATns6ARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETnTON ( C ) N0. S^ioL- /2010 •SEMGt C B PETITIONER Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Janakpur, through its president Ram Suman Yadav S/o. Shri Nandlal Yadav, aged about 48 Years R/o. Village and Post - Janakpur, Vikash Khand Janakpur, Tahsil - Bharatpur, Distt.- Koriya (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^ %^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Food Public Distribution and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya , D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. <' Collector, Koria ( Baikunthpur), Distt.- Koriya (C.G.) 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, ( Revenue ) Bharatpur Sonhat, Distt. Kdriya 4. Food Officer Koriya, Distt.- Koriya (C.G.) 5. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Baikunthpur, Distt.- Koriya (C.&.) WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OFINDIA FORISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. _L __PAPTTn II AOfi-aEJ-l-lC-DEz-c-i-cat^co- HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (G) No. 5402 of 2Q 10 PETITIONER : Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Janakpur. VERSUS Ki-^S?-^ fi"'^ RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTLCLE226 OF_THE_CQNSTITUTIPN_QF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Dy. A.G. forthe State/respondents. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 20th day of September, 2010) 1. The petitioner,being aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Collector, Baikunthpur, has filed this petition whereby the allotment of certain fair price shops to the petitioner, have been cancelled. 2. Clause 18(2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004, clearly provides that if any person aggrieved by an order ofthe designated officer for allotment of Fair Price Shop or cancellation ofFair Price Shop, may appeal to the Collector, within 30 days offhe receipt ofthe order. Further, any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may appeal to the State Govemment within 30 days ofthe date ofreceipt ofthe order. 3. Thus, it is clear that fhere is a altemative remedy available to the petitioner which is an efficacious and effective. There is no reason asto why this Court should entertain this petition when there is an altemative foruro available to the petitioner. (See: A.P.Foods v. S.Samuel & Others). 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to altemative statutory fomm that may be available to him, under the provisions of law, if so advised. Amit Sd/- SatisbK.Agmtaotri Judge (2006) 5 SCC 469