Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Gram Panchayat Itai Tehsil Nawagarh, District
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:1859 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3310 of 2020 Jagriti Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Village Murra, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Through Its President Smt. Vishwasa Bai Wife of Indel Prasad Dhritlehre, Aged About 35 Years , Resident of H.No. 55, Village Murra, Post office Nandghat Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Gram Panchayat Itai Tehsil Nawagarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector (Food) Bemetara , District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner 3 - The Sub Divisional officer Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sanchalan Karta Agency Gram Panchayat Itai Through Secretary, Gram Panchayat Itai Tehsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara. --- Respondent(s) with WPC No. 667 of 2021 Smt. Pinkeshwari Kathale W/o Trilok Kumar Kathale Aged About 28 Years Resident of Village Murra, Post office Nandghat, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2- Collector Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional officer (Revenue) Nawagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. -2- 4 - Chief Executive officer Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5- Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Through Its President, Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Murra, Murra, Post ofice Nandghat , Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil --- Respondent(s) Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. with WPC No. 286 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
Jagriti Manila Swa Sahayata Samuh Village Murra, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Through Its President Smt. Vishvasa Bai Wife of Indel Prasad Dhritlehre, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of H.No. 55, Village Murra, P.O. Nandghat Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1- The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2- The Collector (Food) Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3- The Sub Divisional officer Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For WPC/286/2021 & 3310/2020 Petitioners in For Petitioner in WPC No. 667/2021 : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.4 WPC/3310/2020 For Respondent No.5 WPC/667/2021 in : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate in : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.01.2025 1) Since these three petitions are connected to each other, they are heard together
Decision
and being disposed of by this common order. -3- WPC No.3310 of 2020:- 2) The petitioner/Jagriti Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh was constituted on 10.04.2015 and was registered according to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973. Smt. Pinkeshwari Kathale was one of the members of the self-help-group. The group was allotted a fair-price-shop on 01.08.2016 at village Murra as per Clause 9 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 (amended in 2016). Some of the members of the group parted ways whereas Smt. Pinkeshwari Kathale was removed from the said group by the President and the Secretary of the group on 16.05.2020. 3) Smt. Srimathi Pinkeshwari Kathale made a complaint against her removal from the self-help-group before the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), Navagarh on 20.09.2020; the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), Navagarh directed the Chief Executive officer, Navagarh to enquire into the matter. The chief executive officer Navagarh constituted a committee to conduct an enquiry in this regard. A committee of four members was constituted and a report was submitted on 28.09.2020. The committee on the basis of statements of members of the self- help-group and the villagers recommended canceling the registration of the self-help-group looking to the differences between members and also for the reason that registers were not maintained properly. It was also found by the committee that there were financial irregularities with regard to 60,000 as ₹ alleged by Smt. Pinkeshwari Kathale. 4) The Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), Nawagarh vide order dated 27.11.2020 -4- attached the fair price shop of village Murra with Gram Panchayat Itai. The petitioner group challenged the order 27.11.2020 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 17.12.2020 stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 27.11.2020 till the next date of hearing. WPC No.286 of 2021:- 5) In this case, the supply of mid-day-meal was allotted to the petitioner/self-help- group vide order dated 18.06.2015. The Sub Divisional officer (Revenue) vide memo dated 02.12.2020 cancelled the order of allotment of mid-day-meal on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the committee dated 28.09.2020 and this order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court and an interim order was passed by this court on 27.01.2021. 6) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Self-Help- Group/Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh would argue that there were no allegations with regard to any financial irregularities. She would further submit that the fair-price-shop was attached with another gram panchayat without there being any reason and thereafter, the order of supply of mid-day-meal was also cancelled without there being any reason. Therefore, both orders are contrary to the standing Control Order, 2016, particularly, as per Clause 9 (16). She would further submit that an enquiry was conducted and in that enquiry, there is no finding that the petitioner group committed any irregularities in the functioning of the fair price shop and the supply of mid-day-meal, therefore, both orders are liable to be quashed. -5- She would contend that the order of suspension of the fair price shop has been placed along with the return filed by the State, but that order was passed with an ulterior motive after filing of the writ petition particularly, after passing of the interim order in favour of the petitioner group. She would also contend that initially, an order was passed for the attachment of fair price shop, but when this Court granted stay in favour of the petitioner-self-help-group, the anti- dated order was issued by the respondent authorities. She would argue that the petitioner group is still running the fair price shop and supplying the mid-day- meals to the various schools. She would also argue that with regard to the mid- day-meals, an enquiry was conducted, and it was found that there were no irregularities in supply. 7) On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Singhai and submit that initially, an order of attachment of fair price shop was passed, but on 28.11.2020, the order of suspension of the fair price shop was passed, and that order was placed along with the return, but the petitioner group failed to challenge that very order. He would contend that the order of suspension was addressed to the petitioner too, and it was within the knowledge of the petitioner, but the same has not been challenged therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He would contend that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner group before passing the order of attachment/suspension of fair- -6- price-shop and cancellation of mid-day-meal. He would also submit that statements of the members of the committee, villagers as well as the President of the group were recorded. He would submit that both the petitions filed by the self-help-group deserve to be dismissed. 8) Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General would also state that the order impugned is appealable according to the provisions of Clause 18 of the standing Control Order, 2016. 9) Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Singhai and submit that on the complaint of one Smt. Pinkeshwari Kathale, an enquiry was conducted wherein allegations were found proved. The authority concerned has rightly taken a decision to pass the order of attachment/suspension of the fair price shop and cancellation of the supply of mid-day-meal. 10) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 11) The submissions made by Mr. Pandey with regard to alternative remedy to prefer an appeal as the orders impugned are appealable one, in the opinion of this Court, as these petitions are pending since the year 2020-2021; initially, no such objection was raised by the counsel for the State and after long three years, such an objection is not sustainable, thus, the objection raised by Mr. Pandey is overruled. 12) Clause 9 (16) of the standing order deals with the obligation to follow the terms -7- and conditions specified in the allotment order of the fair-price-shop and the same is reproduced herein below:- “9(16). उचि(cid:3)त मू(cid:6)ल्य की(cid:10) दु(cid:12)की(cid:13)न की(cid:13) स्वा(cid:13)मू(cid:17), अन(cid:12)बं(cid:20)ध मू(cid:22) दु(cid:17) गई सभी(cid:17) शत(cid:28)(cid:20) की(cid:13) अन(cid:12)पा(cid:13)लन कीरे ग(cid:13) तथा(cid:13) इनकी(cid:13) उቤ(cid:20)घन नीሻ& कीरे ग(cid:13)।" 13) From a perusal of the Enquiry report as well as the orders impugned, it is apparent that the authority concerned has not assigned any of the grounds mentioned in Clause 9(16) of the standing order, 2016, while passing the orders impugned dated 27.11.2020 and 02.12.2020, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, both orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed. Accordingly, both these petitions (WPC/3310/2020 & WPC/286/2021) are allowed. WPC No. 667 of 2021:- 14) In this petition, the petitioner Smt. Pinkeshwari Kathale, who was a member of Jagriti Swa Sahayata Samuh (self-help-group) was removed on 16.05.2020. The resolution passed by the self-help-group would show that the petitioner was not cooperating in the functioning of the group. 15) Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Smt. Pinkeshwari Kathale would submit that the petitioner, who was a member of self-help-group, was removed contrary to the provisions given in the bye-laws. He would further submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded, no enquiry was conducted, no notice was served upon the petitioner and directly a resolution was passed. He would also submit that the resolution passed by the Self-Help-Group is erroneous and is liable to be quashed. -8- 16) On the other hand, Ms. Singhai would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Bajpai and submit that the petitioner/Smt. Pinkeshwari Kathale was not cooperating with the functioning of the self-help-group. Therefore, such a decision was taken by the majority of the members of the group. She would also submit that according to the bye-laws, there is no requirement to afford the opportunity of hearing before passing such a resolution. 17) I have learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 18) The learned counsel appearing for the self-help-group has not placed on record its bye-laws. A member of a self-help-group cannot be removed from the group without affording a due opportunity of hearing if she was not cooperating with the functioning of the group. The President/Secretary of the group was under an obligation to provide such member sufficient opportunity of hearing, and thereafter, the decision could have been taken. 19) In the present case, there was no memo of accusation, no show cause notice, and no opportunity of hearing was afforded, therefore, the resolution dated 16.05.2020 passed by the President/Secretary of the Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh/Self-Help-Group is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the resolution whereby the petitioner/Pinkeshawari Kathale was removed from the group is hereby set aside/quashed. Accordingly, the petition (WPC No. 667 of 2021) is allowed in part. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim