c - ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR £ W.P.fCLNo._3J^ ^2010 PETITIONER ^ ^o^! -a RR.'*;. PrssortiMti.T, ••ti'-'-t.l'^a^. •^••^•\-r^—-- "^•"^^lv RESPONDENTS ^ 1] ^2] ^] ^4] ^-5] Mousami Women's Self Help Group, Sahanpur, District Surguja, through: its President Smt. Ratna Behra, W/o. Madhav Ram, aged about 75 years, R/o. Gram Panchayat Sahanpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department ofFood, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector (Food), Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) . Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) Food Inspector, Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) Food Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^F^THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '—n^aiicilLARS_QFTHE PETITIONER (S): HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 3913 OF 2010 Petitioner Respondents Versus Mousami Women's Self.Help Group, Sahanpur. State of Chhattisgarh & others. VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDiA (SB : Hon'ble IVlr. Satish K. Agnihotri,J.) Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 29th day ofJuly, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submifs thaf the rnatter rnay be disposed of at this stage only. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2-1/9/2009 (Annexure - PI3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur, canceling allotment of Fair Price Shop (for short "the FPS") of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector (Food Branch), Sarguja, along with an applicafion for grant of interirn relief. 3. 4. The Collector by impugned order dated 13/7/2010 (Annexure ~ P/1) dismissed the application for grant of interim relief on extraneous considerations, which were not relevant for decision of application for grant of interim relief, without considering relevant facts that the petitioner was running t'ne FPS and the baiance of convenience. The facts that the petitioner was 75 years old and incompetent to run the FPS may not be the criteria either for as <<i!"e'3g» 2 ; ' cancellation of allotment of FPS or for refusal to grant interim relief. 5. On perusal of the papers, it appears that the basis requirement to grant interim reliefi.e. balance ofconvenience and irreparable loss has not been considered by the Collector in rejecting the application for grant of interim relief. The Collector has gohe on other extraneous considerations, which were not even the subject matter of cancellation of FPS by the Sub Divisional Officer. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order passed by the Collector is bad in law and unjust. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13/7/2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Collector, Sarguja, is quashed. However, liberi:y is reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh application before the Collector and in that event, the Collector shall consider and decide the same at the earliest within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the application, if any, in accordance with law and on its own merits, not on the basis of extraneous considerations. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto cosfs. ___-—-——-T--~ Sd/- i SatishK.Agnihom \ Judge -< b- z? ashok