Prior administrative redressal of grievances renders a writ petition seeking identical relief infructuous.

The petitioners, BPL ration card holders and residents of Village Mohtara Kurmi, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Respondent authorities to decide their objections regarding the mismanagement of a Public Distribution System (PDS) outlet

They alleged that Respondent No. 5, representing a Self-Help Group (SHG) entrusted with food distribution, failed to distribute essential commodities for July and August 2020 and misappropriated stocks

Despite complaints to the Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in September 2020, the petitioners claimed no action was taken

The State countered that action had already been initiated following a prior complaint in June 2020, resulting in the suspension of Respondent No. 5’s contract on August 31, 2020, under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

Furthermore, the shop had been re-allotted to another SHG to ensure a continuous supply.

A previous related litigation (WPC No. 3334/2020) had also addressed the legality of the administrative actions concerning this outlet

1. Whether the grievances of the petitioners regarding the non-distribution of PDS commodities and inaction by authorities still survive in light of the subsequent administrative actions and judicial orders.

2. Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the underlying controversy has been substantially addressed.

Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which governs the licensing, suspension, and regulation of fair price shops

Principles of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically the doctrine that the Court may decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction if the cause of action no longer subsists or has been rendered moot by subsequent administrative compliance

The Court examined the material record and the history of WPC No. 3334/2020, noting that the management of the fair price shop in question had already undergone judicial and administrative scrutiny

The State demonstrated that Respondent No. 5's contract was suspended following due process and that the shop’s operation was transferred to the "Satnam Mahila Self Help Group" to prevent disruption in the supply of essential commodities

The Court reasoned that since the authorities had already taken consequential steps to regulate the shop and safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries, the petitioners' original grievance regarding "inaction" no longer existed in its original form

The Court concluded that the controversy was substantially resolved through these administrative interventions and the previous court order, making further interference unnecessary

Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and disposed of the writ petition

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to approach the competent authority with a fresh, specific representation if they continue to face difficulties or irregularities in receiving PDS benefits, directing the authority to decide such representations via a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned parties

No costs were awarded