Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Sonam Lakra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 3178 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer
For Caveator: Mr. Pawan Kesharwani
Judicial review affirmed accountability of elected officials against misconduct, emphasizing responsibility in public distribution systems.
Headnote:(A) Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2016 - Sections 5, 11, and 15 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3/7 - Petition against an order finding the petitioner liable for irregularities in ration distribution - The petitioner’s role as whistle-blower overlooked and implicated post irregularities in the system. (Paras 3, 4, 8)
(B) Judicial Review - The functioning and accountability of elected representatives in diet distribution affirmed, emphasizing the importance of responsibility held by panchayat officials in maintaining equitable food supply. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order for financial liability regarding ration distribution failures during her tenure as Sarpanch, claiming she was a whistle-blower against the same irregularities.
Findings of Court:
Court concluded that significant irregularities in food distribution involving the petitioner and other panchayat officials were duly proven.
Issues: The legality of the SDO's order holding the petitioner accountable for past irregularities during her term as Sarpanch.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no merit in the petition as evidence firmly established irregularities attributable to the petitioner and her associates.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. irregularities in food distribution process (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. responsibility of sarpanch and officials in ration distribution (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. legal basis for dismissal of petition (Para 9 , 10) |
Order on Board
30/06/2025
1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following relief(s):
“(a) Stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pharasabahar, during the pendency of the present writ petition; and (b) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”
3. The brief facts of the case is that the present petition is being filed against the order dated 19.05.2025, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pharashbahar, District- Jashpur, whereby the petitioner is held liable under Section 5 , 11 and 15 of Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2016 and further, under Section 3 /7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . it is alleged that while holding the office of Sarpanch from the year 2020 to 2024 there are various irregularities found in the Public Distribution System. On various occasions when the physical stock of ration is compared with the computerized list of tons of commodities like rice, sugar, chana are missing. Show cause notices were issued against Sarpanch, panchayat Secretary and owner of Fair Price Shop, all filed their reply after perusal of the replies the Sub-divisional officer (Revenue) pass the order and order for issuance of recovery certificate against all of them. In addition to this, a separate proceeding under Section 40 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam , under Section 40 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam , 1993 is also initiated against the petitioner thereby causing undue hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner. The action on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer (R) without considering the fact that petitioner Sonam Lakra herself is a whistle- blower to the irregularities conducted by the authorities with hand and glove with other officials also. But she was implicated as a culprit, the Learned Sub-Divisional officer overlooked the fact that the petitioner was not acting as sarpanch when these irregularities happened.
5. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
7. It is a proven fact that the operating agency of the Fair Price Shop of Gram Panchayat Sajbahar itself is the Gram Panchayat, thus, the full responsibility of the distribution of ration being supplied by the State Government every month to all the eligible beneficiaries from the Fair Price Shop in Village Sajbahar lies with the Village Sarpanch, Panchayat Secretary, and salesmen. An application was brought by Sarpanch Ms. Sonam Lakra herself as an applicant on the fact that she is facing problems due to non-distribution of ration for the months of January, February and March, 2025. Examination of the Food Inspector's report and the reply of Panchayat Secretary Shivmangal Sai makes it clear that during the code of conduct of Panchayat elections, when the charge of running the fair price shop of Gram Panchayat Sabbahar was handed over to the new Panchayat Secretary Shri Shivmangal Sai, at the same time the shortage of food grains in the shop was proved by physical verification. The total shortage of rice in the grocery store during physical verification was 365.02 kg. This deficiency had been going on since earlier times. Available evidence has proved that food grains were not distributed to many eligible beneficiaries in the months o
