Annpurna Prathmik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar vs State of C.G. and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12th June, 2003 (Annexure - P/l) whereby ward Nos. 4, 5 and 12 of Nagar Panchayat, Arang, have been taken away from the fair price shop of the Petitioner and allotted to the Respondent No. 7. The Petitioner also challenges the order dated 12th June, 2003 (Annexure - P/2) whereby ward Nos. 13,14 and 15 of Nagar Panchayat, Arang, have been taken away from the fair price shop of the Petitioner and allotted to the Respondent No. 8 for distribution of essential commodities under the provisions of the Rule 4(2) of the Chhattisgarh (Khadya Padharth) Sarvajanik Nagarik Purti Vitran Scheme, 2001 (for short "the Scheme, 2001").

The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the Petitioner, are that the Petitioner - Annpurna Prathmik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar (for short "the Petitioner/society") is a registered society under the provisions of the M.P. Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960"). The Petitioner/society was allotted the fair price shop for distribution of essential commodities in Nagar Panchayat, Arang, having wards 1 to 15, in the month of December, 1991.

Thereafter, by the impugned order, dated 12th June, 2003 (Annexure -P/l) ward Nos.4,5 and 12 of Nagar Panchayat, Arang, were removed from the Petitioner/society and allotted to the Respondent No. 7 and by the impugned order dated 12th June, 2003 (Annexure - P/2) ward Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of Nagar Panchayat, Arang, were removed from the Petitioner/society and allotted to the Respondent No. 8 under the provisions of the Rule 4(2) of the Scheme, 2001.

It appears that being aggrieved by the impugned orders; the Petitioner/society preferred an application under the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, 1960 to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, after having considered the case sent a letter to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, on the 24th July, 2003 (Annexure - P/10) for allotting all the wards of Nagar Panchayat, Arang to the Petitioner/society. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 25th July, 2003 (Annexure - P/11) stayed the impugned orders passed by the Food Controller, Office of the Collector (Food) Raipur, ex parte.

The question as to whether the appeal/application is maintainable before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies against the order passed by the Food Controller under the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, 1960, though is not in question in this petition, however, on perusal of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, 1960 it appears that the appeal against the order passed by the Food Controller before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is not maintainable.

Section 64 of the Act, 1960 deals with the disputes touching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment of a society or the liquidation of a society etc. It further includes (i) a claim by a society for any debt or demand due to it from a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not (ii) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (iii) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, past member or deceased member, any officer, past officer or deceased officer, any agent, past agent or deceased agent, or any servant, past servant or deceased servant, or its committee, past or present, whether such loss be admitted or not; (iv) a question regarding rights, etc., including tenancy rights between a housing society and its tenants or members; and (v) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society.

Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that since the Petitioner/society is a registered society, no other person can be allotted the fair price shop for distribution of essential commodities.

Per contra, Shri Amrito Das, learned Counsel appearing for the State, would submit that there is a statutory appeal provided under the notification dated 14th August, 2003 (Annexure - R/1) to the State Government. Shri Das would further submit that the Petitioner without taking recourse to the appropriate statutory forum has gone to the Registrar and it appears that during pendency of the said case, the Petitioner/society has filed this petition; therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed on account of availability of efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy under the provisions of law.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

The Petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the order dated 12th June, 2003 (Annexure - P/1 & P/2) whereby some wards have been taken from the Petitioner''s fair price shop and allotted to some other persons may be it is on account of enhancement of the ration card holders. No facts have been pleaded and no law has been brought into the notice of the Court stating that the Petitioner/society alone has legal or statutory or other right to distribute the essential commodities through fair price shop. It is not the case where the allotment of fair price, shop of the Petitioner/society has been cancelled, as out of 15 wards only 5 wards have been taken away and allotted to the Respondents No. 7 & 8. The Petitioner/society is still dealing with the distribution of essential commodities to remaining 9 wards through the fair price shop allotted to it. There is no allegation of malafide, arbitrariness, unreasonableness or discrimination and, as such, the impugned orders dealing with the allocation of shops and distribution of essential commodities to some of the wards through the Respondents No. 7 & 8 cannot held as bad, unjustified or improper. On the documents available on the record, 1 have not found any merit in the case on hand, warranting interference with the decision of the Food Controller in passing the impugned orders dated 12th June, 2003 (Annexure - P/1 & P/2).

In view of foregoing, the writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.