@ $ y loo; ’/ é ( BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURI‘ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION No. 3 56$ 12006 PETITIONERS / 1. Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Fundurdihari Ambikapur, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) through its President Smt. Chinta Chaturvedi, Wife of Shri Amar a Kant Choubey, aged about 40 ax“ years. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (Reg: No.2035l9.12.97) / 2. Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkan' Bhandar Maryadit, Deviganj, osxeb‘f Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, through — its President, Radheshyam Yadav, son of Rambilash Yadav, aged about 42 years, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (Regn No. 1734/28. 12.90) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /. l. The State of Chhath'sgarh, through — the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Distt. Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) ‘ District Food Omcer, Distta Surguja(C.G.) @% 4. Manipur Prathmik Sahkali Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Ambikapur, Municipal Corporation — Ambikapur, through — its President, Shravan K1lmar, (Chhattisgarh) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The Peti1ioners, named above, respectfully submits as md&§— Ambikapur,‘ Dist. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 5. / Maa Bhawani Prathmik Swayatya Sahkarita Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Ambikapur, Municipal Corporation ~ Ambikapur, through — its President, Dashrath Soni, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja I (Chhattisgarh) r6. f Deen Dayal .Swayatya Sahkarita Prathmjc Upbhokta Bhandal Maryadit, through — its President — Mukesh Tiwari, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). /7. Adjm Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Namnakala Ambikapur, through — its Incharge, K.P. Dim't, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3506 of2006 PETITIONER : Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maxyadit & another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CON STI’I‘UTION OF INDIA SB: Hdn’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri; J. .‘....Present: Shri AN.Bhakt& Advocate for the petiticner. Shri N.N.R0y, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent N0. 1 to 3. Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 and 6. (Passed ORDER gORAL) on 29 ‘ day of June, 2010) l. Chailenge in this petition is to the notings dated 30.05.2006 (Annexure P/l), whereby the petitioners were not allotted the fair price shops as the petitioner No. 1 made an application for allotment of fair price shop No. l2, Ward No. 40 and the petitioner No. 2 applied for shop No. 1 (Ward No. 1, 2, 3 and 4), shop No. 2 (ward No. 8, 9, 10 and 11) and shop No. 3 (ward No. 28, 29, 30; 31 and 34). 2. The grievance ofthe petitioners are based on the letter dated 25052006 (Annexure P/6), whereby the petitioners were directed to produce all the documents, passbook in original in the office of Collector (Food) for verification ofthe documents. 3. Shri Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the documents were produced before the competent officer for verification and thereafter, no order has been passed in favour of the petitioners. On the contrary, the respondent No. 7 was allotted three fair price shops even without there being any application in this regard which is evident from Annexure P/7, which is a list received by the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. Thus, the respondent No. 2 and 3 may be directed to allot the fair price shops to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that he has no information with regard to the fact asto whether or not t i r. that thepetitioners have not acquired any right on account of the fact that they have made applications and' their documents have been verified for allotment offair pn'ce shops. In this petition, though the relief sought for may not be granted to the petitioner in View of the fact that verification ofdocuments or tiling an application does not confer any right on the petitioners for allotment of fair price shops, however, the fact remains that as per the information , submitted by the Assistant Information Officer, no application for allotment was made by the respondent No. 7. Under clause 9 ofthe Chhattisgarh Public distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 (for short ‘the Order, 2004’), there is a requirement of publication of advertisement inviting applications for allotment of fair price shops. Thereafter, the applications may be considered and allotments may be made in accordance With the preference as provided tinder sub clause (3) of clause 9 ofthe Order, 2004, It appears that the petitioners have been discriminated in case of allotment as the same has been done in favour of respondent No. ’7, without there being an application on the part ofthe respondent No. 7. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and for the reasons aforestated, the respondent No. 2 and 3 are directed to examine the‘ a matter asto whether the allotments were made to the respondent No. 7, without following the statutory provisions as prescribed in the Order, 2004. If it is found that the allotment was not legal as there was no application, the case of the petitioners for allotment offair price shops. may be consideredias the documents of the petitioners have already been verified bv the authorities. In View ofthe above, the writ petition’stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge W Sd/- l Amit