Maa Sharda Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 17th March. 2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, Ambikapur, whereby the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner was cancelled, has filed this petition.

Allotment of fair price shop, cancellation, renewal, appeal are governed under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2004 (for short ''the Order, 2004''). The control order was passed by the State Government in exercise of its power u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The distribution of essential commodities requires expediency and proper functioning. Accordingly, an appellate provision has been made under clause 18 of the Order, 2004. In the event, if the allotee of fair price shop is aggrieved by any order, an appeal can be made to the Collector/Additional Collector within a period of 30 days. If the order is passed by the Additional Collector/Collector, an appeal is maintainable to the State Government. The present impugned order is passed by the Additional Collector, thus, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is filing of statutory appeal before the State Government. The remedy is effective and efficacious.

Without resorting to the statutory forum, the petitioner has rushed to this Court on the ground that since no notice was given, it is not necessary to take recourse to statutory alternative forum. Since the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by the appellate forum expeditiously and efficiently, this petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy.

It is trite a law that a departure from general rule may be made only in exceptional cases. This is not an exceptional or special case wherein departure from normal rule i.e. taking recourse to alternative statutory forum, be made. There is no reason to entertain this petition directly when the petitioner has not exhausted all the statutory appellate remedy available to him.

Normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, (seeState of H.P. and other v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another, (2005) 6 SCC 499 , U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, and Secretary, U.P. High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad and Another Vs. H.K. Lal, , Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Jahan Khan, and Popcorn Entertainment and Another Vs. City Industrial Development Corpn. and Another,

In view of the foregoing this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory forum, that may be available to him, under the provisions of law, if so advised. No. order as to costs.

Consequently, I.A.No. 1 application for grant of ad-interim writ, I.A. No.2. application for dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, also stand disposed of.