Amrit Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. State of C.G. & Others
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.04 16:31:18 +0530 2025:CGHC:15839-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 225 of 2025 Jaimala Women Self Help Group - Pachawal Through Its Secretary Smt. Chinta Yadav W/o Premalal Yadav Aged About 32 Years, Secretary Of Jaimala Women Self Help Group - Pachawal, R/o Village Pachawal Tahsil- Ramchandrapur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Corporation, Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex Naya Raipur, Atalnagar Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The District Director Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Balrampur Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Collector Office Of Collectorate (Food Branch) Balrampur Distt.- Balrampur-Ramnujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Food Inspector - Ramanujganj Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj Distt.- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - Govt. Faire Price Shop Sanawal, Gram- Sanawal, Tahsil- Ramchandrapur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramnujganj (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
7 - Amrit Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Through Its Secretary Smt. Shakunti W/o Manoj Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Gram Panchayat- Pachawal, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat- Ramchandrapur Distt.- Balrampur-Ramnujganj (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents 2 For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) For State/respondents No.1 to 6 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 6 as well as Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s): “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside of the impugned order dated 17.1.2025 Annexure A/1 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.4900/2024, parties name “Amrit Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs State of C.G. & Others” in the interest of justice.” 3 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4900 of 2024 (Amrit Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been allowed. 4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, respondent No.7 / writ petitioner Self Help Group was operating of the Govt. Faire Price Shop- Pachawal, Tahsil- Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G). On the basis of complaint made by the Rashan Card Holders and Villagers of the Village Panchayat Pachawal, in respect of irregularity of operating of faire price shop Pachawal by respondent No.7, Food Inspector Ramanujganj, inspected the shop of respondent No.7 and during inspection, he has found several irregularity and deficiency in operating of faire price shop of village Pachawal has committed and prepared the inspection report and send to respondent No.5, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G). After receiving of inspection report, respondent No.5. issued show-cause notice to the respondent No.7 on 16.07.2024, upon which, respondent No.7 filed the reply of the show-cause notice on 22.07.2024 and after receiving the reply of show-cause notice, respondent No.5, cancelled the allotment of the shop of respodnent No.7 vide order dated 28.08.2024. 5. After cancellation of the shop of respondent No.7, respondent 4 no.5 issued an advertisement for allotment of the Faire Price Shop Pachawal on 24.10.2024 and in pursuance of the said advertisement, appellant herein-Self Help Groups and other agencies have participated and respondent No.5 allotted the Faire Price Shop of village Pachawal to the appellant on 04.12.2024. It, in pursuance to the allotment order dated 04.12.2024, appellant was taken the charge of Govt. Faire Price Shop of village Panchayat Pachawal from the other agency on 05.12.2024 and regularly orating of Faire Price Shop of Village- Pachawal till date. 6. Being aggrieved by cancellation of the allotment order dated 28.08.2024, respondent No.7/writ petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition (C) No.4900/2024 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.01.2025, allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.7 herein/writ petitioner and set-aside the cancellation order dated 28.08.2024. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant herein. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that
Decision
the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.7/writ petitioner, in which respondent No.7 herein has suppressed the material facts about allotment of the 5 Govt. Faire Price Shop of village Pachawal in favor of the appellant on 04.12.2024. It has been contended that the appellant herein is the aggrieved and necessary party in the writ petition, but the same fact has not been brought on record by the respondent No.7/writ petitioner at the time of hearing of writ petition, due to which Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and setting aside the order dated 28.08.2024 without issuing any notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, which is violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set- aside. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7/writ petitioner opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and jointly submit that when the order of cancellation has been challenged by the writ petitioner/respondent No.7, the appellant is nowhere in the picture as there was no occasion for the writ petitioner to make party to the appellant before the writ Court. They would further submit that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, also given a direction to the respondents stating that the respondents are free to take action against the society, if so desired by providing sufficient opportunity and notice to the society. They lastly submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed 6 the impugned order dated 17.01.2025, which does not call for any interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 11. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “5. From perusal of the order and show cause notice dated 16.07.2024 issued to the Director/Assistant Salesman and on the basis of the reply submitted by the Assistant Salesman, the impugned order of cancellation of the fair price shop allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled. It appears that no notices or opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner/Society. 6. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the same has been passed by issuance of notice to the salesman of society and no notices were issued to the President of the society whose allotment of fair price shop has been cancelled. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby 7 quashed. However, the respondents are free to take action against the society, if so desired, by providing sufficient opportunity and notice to the petitioner/society. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition allowed.” 12. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, it has been reflected that the appellant is no where in the picture when respondent No.7/writ petitioner had challenged the order of cancellation dated 28.08.2025 because on the said date, no allotment order was in favour of the appellant to the concerned village Panchayat Pachawal, Tahsil and Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). Further, it has been apparent that at present, respondent No.7/writ petitioner i.e. Amrit Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh is operating the Faire Price Shop at village Panchayat Pachawal, Tahsil and Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) and there was no occasion for the writ petitioner/appellant herein to made it as a party respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.7 herein. 13. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the 8 case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4900 of 2024 (Amrit Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 14. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu