Writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when efficacious alternative statutory remedies are available.

The petitioner, a registered women self-help group, was allotted a fair price shop on 29.01.2021 under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Following complaints of irregularities, a show-cause notice was issued on 03.04.2025, to which the petitioner replied.

On 06.06.2025, Respondent No. 3 passed an order attaching the petitioner’s shop to Respondent No. 4.

The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, alleging a violation of natural justice and failure to follow legal procedures.

The State contended that an alternative remedy exists under the Control Order, 2016, and noted that while the shop was briefly reinstated, further suspension orders were passed during the pendency of this petition.

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the court should adjudicate on the merits of the attachment order or relegate the matter to the competent statutory authority.

The Court applied the principle of "Alternative Remedy," an established rule of judicial self-restraint where High Courts ordinarily refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an efficacious statutory remedy is available.

The mechanical framework for the dispute is governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which provides for a redressal mechanism through the competent authority, specifically the Sub-Divisional Officer.

The Court observed that the core of the dispute involves factual and procedural allegations regarding the management of a fair price shop, which falls squarely within the regulatory ambit of the Control Order, 2016.

Although the petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice, the Court noted the State's submission that proceedings had already been initiated before the competent authority and that the statutory framework provides a specific forum for such grievances.

The Court reasoned that since the statutory authority is already seized of the matter or is the appropriate body to investigate the irregularities, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to intervene at this stage.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned competent authority, with a direction that the competent authority must decide the matter expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the law.