Durg Vipnan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Durg Vipnan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, was allotted 18 fair price shops in District Durg in 2001. The State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which came into force on January 23, 2017. On July 13, 2020, the respondent authorities issued an order canceling fair price shops allotted to persons operating more than three such shops. Consequently, 15 of the petitioner's 18 fair price shops were canceled. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the 2016 Control Order should not apply retrospectively to allotments made in 2001.
Held
The Court held that the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, is applicable to the petitioner's fair price shop allotments. The Court reasoned that Clause 22 of the Control Order, 2016, dealing with Repeal and Savings, clearly states that any order made or action taken under the repealed Order (Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004) shall be deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 2016 Order. Therefore, any agreement or order issued under the 2004 Order is deemed to have been issued under the 2016 Order. Consequently, the provisions of the 2016 Control Order, specifically Clause 9.4, which limits the number of fair price shops to three, are attracted to the agreements entered into in 2001. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding retrospective application was misconceived, as the 2016 Order governs the current functioning of the shops. The authority was conferred with the power to modify, rescind, alter, or cancel orders, and the cancellation of 13 shops by the Food Controller was within the four corners of the Control Order, 2016. The Court found no case for interference.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, can be applied retrospectively to fair price shop allotments made in 2001, thereby limiting the number of shops an agency can operate to three? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the Control Order, 2016, should not apply retrospectively as the allotment orders for the 18 fair price shops were issued in 2001, and the cancellation order was issued in 2020. They argued that the provisions of the 2016 Order, which limit the number of shops to three, cannot be enforced against them. They also cited Clause 18 of the Control Order, 2016, stating no appeal lies against cancellation, implying a legal issue is involved, making the writ petition maintainable. Reliance was placed on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others, (2023) 109 GSTR 402 and Sonia vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 627. Respondent's argument: The State argued that Clause 9.4 of the Control Order, 2016, permits allotting more than one shop but not exceeding three, and the petitioner was operating 18 shops, justifying the cancellation of 15 shops.
Sections Cited
Clause 9.4, Clause 18, Clause 22
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
2025:CGHC:33291
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1837 of 2020 1 - Durg Vipnan Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Its Manager Shri Hemnath Dewangan S/o Late Shri Chandu Lal Dewangan, Aged About 57 Years, Residence Of Subhash Nagar Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District
:
Raipur,
Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block -2 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur,
Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District
:
Durg,
Chhattisgarh 4 - The Commissioner Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Directorate Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Block -2 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Food Controller Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate along with Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board 16.07.2025
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relates with the instant petition. SMT NIRMALA RAO
2 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 13.7.2020 passed by the office of respondent No.5 (Annexure-P/1). 10.3) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other orders/ direction that, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
The facts of the present case are that the petitioner itself is a society, registered on 28.7.1998 under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co- operative Societies Registration Act. The petitioner’s society was allotted 18 fair price shops in District Durg in the year 2001. Agreements were entered into between the petitioner and the concerned Food Officer in 2001. The State of Chhattisgarh framed the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short ‘Control Order, 2016’), which came into force on 23rd January, 2017. The respondent authorities issued an order dated 13.7.2020, whereby all fair price shops allotted to persons with more than three fair price shops were canceled in the State of Chhattisgarh. As the petitioner was running 18 fair price shops, except three, all the other shops were canceled. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Food Controller, Durg, dated 13.7.2020, is not sustainable according to the Control Order, 2016. He would further contend that since the allotment orders to run 18 fair price shops were issued in favour of the petitioner in 2001, and the decision to cancel the fair price shops was taken in 2020, thus, the Control Order, 2016, will not apply in this case and its provisions cannot be given effective to, which provides that a person cannot be permitted to run more than three fair price shops. He would further submit that as a legal issue is involved,
3 the petition is maintainable. It is also contended that, according to the provisions of Clause 18 of the Control Order, 2016, an appeal would not lie against the cancellation of allotted fair price shops. He would pray to quash the order dated 13.7.2020 pertaining to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Clause 9.4 is reproduced herein below:- “9.4) Generally, only one Fair Price Shop can be allotted to any agency in its area, but in order to ensure regular distribution of essential commodities to ration cardholder consumers, shop allotment authority can allot more than one shop specifying valid reason, but in no circumstances the number of shops so allotted shall exceed three Fair Price Shops.”
Though 21 fair price shops were allotted to the petitioner in the year 2001, but after the enactment of the Control Order, 2016, all fair price shops and the conditions of their functioning are governed by the Control Order, 2016. Clause 22 of the Control Order, 2016, which deals with Repeal and Savings, clearly states that the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004, is hereby repealed, and any order made or action taken under the Order so repealed shall be deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provisions of this order.
Any agreement or order issued pursuant to the Control Order, 2004, shall be deemed to have been issued under the Control Order, 2016. Therefore, the provisions of the Control Order, 2016 shall attract to the agreements entered into between the parties in the year 2001. Consequently, the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner that the Control Order, 2016, cannot be given retrospective effect
5 appears to be misconceived. The authority concerned has been conferred with the powers to modify, rescind, alter or cancel any order issued pursuant to the Control Order, 2004 or 2016. Pursuant to clause 9.4 of the Control Order, 2016, the Food Controller, Durg, canceled the allotment of 13 shops. The decision taken by the authority concerned is within the four corners of the Control Order, 2016. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provisions of clauses 9.4 & 22 of the Control Order, 2016, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference.
Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge Nimmi
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.