SMT. BASMATIYA GOND vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed
by YOGESH
TIWARI
Date:
2026.10.16
18:24:42
+0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
1

CGHC010320502021 2026:CGHC:44643
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4916 of 2021
Smt. Basmatiya Gond W/o Shri Bahadoor Gond, Aged About 50 Years
President Of Mohari Women Self Help Group Pachawal/ Operator Of
Govt. Fair Price Shop Village Pachawal Block And Tahsil Ramanujganj
District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food
And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector (Food Department), Balrampur District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj District
Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
4 - The Food Inspector Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
15.10.2026
1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order
dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Collector, Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Panchayat Appeal No. 20/B-121/2019-

2
2020, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
cancellation of the fair price shop allotted to Mohari Women Self
Help Group, Pachawal, was dismissed. The petitioner has prayed
for following relief(s) :-
“ 10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be
pleased to set aside of impugned order dated
17.2.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 in
Panchayat appeal no. 20/B-121/2019-2020
ANNEXURE P/1 and allow the petitioner to
continue for running of fair price shop of price
shop of village -Pachawal,Block Ramanujganj
Distt-Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G).
10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be
granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble
court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case. ”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the fair price shop of Village
Pachawal, Block Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
(C.G.), was allotted to the petitioner group vide order dated
29.06.2015. The petitioner submits that the group was regularly
operating the shop in accordance with the prescribed terms and
conditions. However, following certain allegations of irregularities,
the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) suspended the shop on
07.05.2020 and issued a show-cause notice dated 09.05.2020.
The petitioner submitted her reply on 15.05.2020, denying the
allegations. Nevertheless, the shop was cancelled vide order
dated 21.05.2020, and a fresh advertisement was issued for its

3
allotment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
cancellation was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated
17.02.2021, leading to the filing of the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fair price shop
of Village Pachawal, Block Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.), was allotted to the petitioner group, namely,
Mohari Women Self Help Group, vide order dated 29.06.2015, and
the group was regularly operating the shop in accordance with the
prescribed terms and conditions. It is contended that, although the
petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 09.05.2020
alleging certain irregularities, the petitioner submitted a reply on
15.05.2020 denying the allegations; however, without conducting
any proper enquiry or affording an effective opportunity of hearing,
the respondent authority cancelled the allotment vide order dated
21.05.2020 and issued a fresh advertisement for allotment of the
shop. Learned counsel further submits that the appellate authority,
while passing the impugned order dated 17.02.2021, failed to
consider the grounds raised in the appeal and the documents
available on record and mechanically affirmed the cancellation
order. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned orders are
arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and liable to
be set aside. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the
decision of this Court in Smt. Mamta Devi v. State of
Chhattisgarh and Others, decided on 20.01.2021 in W.P.(C)
No. 1903 of 2020 , in support of the petitioner's case.

4
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present
petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary
party. Referring to the return filed on behalf of the State, he
submits that, subsequent to the cancellation of the fair price shop
allotted to the petitioner group, the said shop has been allotted to
Amrit Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh vide order dated
22.04.2022. However, the petitioner has not impleaded the said
group as a party to the present proceedings, despite the fact that
the relief sought by the petitioner, namely, setting aside the
cancellation order and restoration of the fair price shop, would
directly affect the rights and interests of the subsequently allotted
group. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner
cannot seek restoration of the allotment without impleading the
group presently operating the fair price shop and affording it an
opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, it is contended that the petition
deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the fair price shop
situated at Village Pachawal, Block Ramanujganj, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), was allotted to the petitioner,
namely, Mohari Women Self Help Group, vide order dated
29.06.2015. However, on the basis of complaints regarding

5
alleged irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities
and the management of the fair price shop, the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, suspended the operation of the
fair price shop on 07.05.2020. Thereafter, a show-cause notice
was issued to the petitioner group, calling upon it to submit its
explanation with respect to the alleged violations of Rules 9(16),
11(2), 11(15) and 11(16) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner submitted its reply on
15.05.2020. Upon consideration of the explanation furnished by
the petitioner and the material available on record, the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue) proceeded to cancel the allotment of
the fair price shop vide order dated 21.05.2020. The said order
was subsequently assailed by the petitioner before the appellate
authority, namely, the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, in
Panchayat Appeal No. 20/B-121/2019-2020. However, the appeal
was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2021. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition seeking, inter
alia, setting aside of the appellate order and restoration of the
allotment of the fair price shop in its favour.
7. From further perusal of the return filed on behalf of the State, it
appears that the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment was
preceded by complaints made by the villagers of Village Pachawal
regarding the non-supply of ration and alleged mismanagement of
the affairs of the fair price shop. The return specifically refers to a
communication addressed by the Sarpanch of the village to the

6
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), pursuant to which the Naib
Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, was directed to conduct an enquiry into
the functioning of the fair price shop. In pursuance thereof, the
Naib Tahsildar conducted an enquiry, prepared a Panchnama,
recorded the statements of the villagers and submitted a report
dated 07.05.2020 recommending appropriate action in accordance
with law. The State has further stated that, on the basis of the
aforesaid report and the alleged violations of the applicable
provisions of the Control Order, the operation of the fair price shop
was initially suspended and a show-cause notice was issued to
the petitioner group. The petitioner submitted its reply on
15.05.2020; however, the explanation was found unsatisfactory by
the competent authority, resulting in the cancellation of the
allotment vide order dated 21.05.2020. The State has also placed
reliance upon the relevant documents, including the complaint
made by the Sarpanch, the enquiry report submitted by the Naib
Tahsildar, the cancellation order and the official notings relating to
the proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue).
8. It is further evident that following the cancellation of the allotment
in favour of the petitioner group, a fresh advertisement dated
22.05.2020 was issued inviting applications from eligible Women
Self Help Groups for operating the fair price shop at Village
Pachawal, Block and Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.). In response to the said advertisement, seven
applications were received, and the process for selection of an

7
eligible group was undertaken by the competent authority. The
State has specifically pleaded that, during the pendency of the
present writ petition, the aforesaid fair price shop was allotted to
Amrit Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh vide order dated
22.04.2022. A copy of the said allotment order has been placed on
record as Annexure R/1. Thus, the position emerging from the
pleadings of the parties is that the allotment originally made in
favour of the petitioner group has been cancelled, the petitioner's
appeal against such cancellation has been dismissed by the
Collector, and the fair price shop in question has subsequently
been allotted to another Women Self Help Group.
9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the order passed by the
appellate authority, which is the subject matter of challenge in the
present writ petition, is dated 17.02.2021. The petitioner has
approached this Court seeking to set aside the said order and to
obtain restoration of the allotment of the fair price shop in its
favour. However, the subsequent allotment of the same fair price
shop in favour of Amrit Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh vide
order dated 22.04.2022 constitutes a material development having
a direct bearing upon the nature and extent of the relief that may
be granted in the present proceedings. The State has specifically
brought this subsequent development to the notice of this Court
and has contended that, in the absence of the subsequently
selected group as a party to the proceedings, the relief sought by
the petitioner cannot effectively be adjudicated or granted. The

8
aforesaid objection, therefore, requires consideration in the
context of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition and the
subsequent events that have taken place during its pendency.
10. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is exercised to adjudicate the legality of
the action impugned before it and to grant appropriate relief in
accordance with law. However, the relief to be granted must
necessarily take into consideration the existing factual and legal
position, including subsequent events that have a direct bearing
upon the controversy. Where the relief sought by a petitioner is not
confined merely to the setting aside of an adverse order but also
extends to the restoration of a right, benefit or allotment that has
subsequently been conferred upon another person or entity, the
Court cannot disregard the legal and factual consequences of
such subsequent allotment. The adjudication must, therefore, take
into account the interests of the person or entity in whose favour
the subsequent order has been passed, particularly where the
relief sought by the petitioner may directly prejudice or adversely
affect such interests. In the present case, the petitioner has sought
not only to set aside the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the
Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, dismissing the appeal, but has
also prayed that it be permitted to continue operating the fair price
shop situated at Village Pachawal. The grant of such relief, in the
circumstances of the present case, cannot be considered in
isolation from the subsequent allotment made in favour of Amrit

9
Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh vide order dated 22.04.2022.
The said allotment order was passed during the pendency of the
present writ petition and has not been independently challenged
by the petitioner. Consequently, the validity of the subsequent
allotment, as well as the rights and interests arising therefrom, do
not constitute a matter directly placed in issue for adjudication in
the present proceedings.
11. This Court further finds that the petitioner has neither challenged
the subsequent allotment order dated 22.04.2022 passed in favour
of Amrit Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh nor impleaded the said
group as a respondent in the present writ petition. The said group
is not a stranger to the controversy, inasmuch as the fair price
shop in question has subsequently been allotted to it and the relief
claimed by the petitioner, if granted, would have a direct bearing
upon its rights and interests. An order restoring the allotment in
favour of the petitioner, without examining the subsequent
allotment and without affording the beneficiary group an
opportunity of hearing, may directly prejudice the interests of the
said group. In these circumstances, Amrit Mahila Swayam
Sahayata Samuh is a necessary party for the effective and
complete adjudication of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner.
12. The objection raised by the State regarding non-joinder of a
necessary party, therefore, cannot be brushed aside as a mere
technical objection. The requirement of impleading a necessary

10
party assumes particular significance where the relief sought is
likely to affect the rights or interests of a person or entity in whose
favour a subsequent order has been passed by the competent
authority. The principles of natural justice require that no adverse
determination affecting the rights of such a person or entity should
ordinarily be made without affording it an opportunity of hearing. In
the present case, any direction for restoration of the fair price shop
in favour of the petitioner would necessarily have implications for
the subsequent allotment made in favour of Amrit Mahila Swayam
Sahayata Samuh. In the absence of the said group, this Court
would not have the benefit of its response to the petitioner's claims
or the relevant circumstances surrounding the subsequent
allotment.
13. It is also significant that the petitioner has not sought any
amendment to the writ petition to bring the subsequent allotment
order dated 22.04.2022 under challenge, nor has the petitioner
taken steps to implead Amrit Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh as
a party to the proceedings till today. The right accrued in favour of
any party way back cannot be taken back in this belated stage.
The reliefs as originally framed, therefore, do not encompass a
challenge to the subsequent allotment order, notwithstanding that
the said order has a direct bearing upon the prayer for restoration
of the fair price shop. In the absence of a challenge to the
subsequent allotment order, this Court cannot, in the present
proceedings, proceed on the assumption that the said allotment is

11
liable to be set aside or that the rights flowing therefrom may be
disregarded. Equally, in the absence of the beneficiary group, no
effective adjudication can be undertaken on the question of
restoration of the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner without
risking prejudice to the interests of an entity that has not been
afforded an opportunity of hearing.
14. Another relevant circumstance is that the cancellation order was
passed on 21.05.2020 and the appellate authority dismissed the
petitioner's appeal on 17.02.2021. The present writ petition seeks
to assail the appellate order and obtain restoration of the
allotment. However, the subsequent allotment in favour of Amrit
Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh was made on 22.04.2022, and
no interim order staying the operation or implementation of the
impugned cancellation or appellate order has been brought to the
notice of this Court. In the absence of any such interim protection,
the subsequent steps taken by the competent authority culminated
in the allotment of the fair price shop to another group. The
subsequent allotment is, therefore, an existing factual
circumstance that cannot be ignored while considering whether
the relief sought in the present writ petition can appropriately be
granted in its present form.
15. It is clarified that the mere passage of time or the subsequent
allotment of a fair price shop to another agency would not, by
itself, necessarily render a challenge to an earlier cancellation

12
order infructuous. Nevertheless, in the present case, the question
is not merely whether the petitioner can challenge the cancellation
order after the passage of time. The difficulty arises because the
petitioner seeks restoration of the very same fair price shop that
has subsequently been allotted to another group, without
challenging the order of subsequent allotment and without
impleading the group in whose favour that allotment has been
made. These omissions go to the maintainability and effective
adjudication of the relief as framed. The Court cannot grant a
direction for restoration of the fair price shop without considering
the subsequent allotment, nor can it adjudicate upon the rights
arising from that allotment in the absence of the beneficiary group.
16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present writ petition, in the form in
which it has been filed and the reliefs as presently framed, does
not permit an effective and complete adjudication of the
controversy. The petitioner has not challenged the subsequent
allotment order dated 22.04.2022 passed in favour of Amrit Mahila
Swayam Sahayata Samuh, although the petitioner seeks
restoration of the same fair price shop.
17. Further, the said group, whose rights and interests would be
directly affected by the grant of the relief sought, has not been
impleaded as a respondent. In the absence of the necessary party
and a challenge to the subsequent allotment order, this Court

13
would not be justified in issuing a direction restoring the fair price
shop in favour of the petitioner, as such a direction may adversely
affect the rights and interests of the subsequent allottee without
affording it an opportunity of hearing.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the
merits of the allegations of irregularities levelled against the
petitioner group or on the legality of the impugned orders dated
21.05.2020 and 17.02.2021, this Court is of the view that the
reliefs claimed in the present writ petition cannot be granted in the
absence of the necessary party and without a challenge to the
subsequent allotment order dated 22.04.2022. The writ petition, as
framed and filed, is, therefore, not maintainable for the purpose of
granting the relief of restoration of the fair price shop as sought by
the petitioner.
19. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed on the aforesaid
grounds. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh