1 2025:CGHC:5190-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 51 of 2025 1 - Smt. Santoshi Ratrey W/o Shri Tarachand Ratrey, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Bohardih, Tahsil Pachpedi, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Tarachand Ratrey, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Bohardih, Tahsil Pachpedi, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Directorate of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Food Inspector, Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Usha Devi Bhargav W/o Shri Lakshmi Prasad Bhargav, R/o Village Bohardih, Tahsil Pachpedi, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shri Lakshmi Prasad Bhargav R/o Village Bohardih, Tahsil Pachpedi, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Shatam Awasthi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29-01-2025 1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “i. To kindly quash the impugned Memo datde 17/12/2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masturi. ii. To kindly direct the respondent authorities to not to take any coercive action against the petitioners. iii To kingly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is Sarpanch of the village, whereas petitioner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.1 and it is stated that the fair price shop is managed by the Gram Panchayat Bohardih of which the petitioner No.1 is Sarpanch who heads the same, some irregularities have been found in functioning of the said fair price shop for which after giving due notice to petitioner No.1 she submitted her reply and order dated 11-12-2024 was passed by the competent authority against which the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal and the same is pending. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 17-12-2024 by which the competent authority has directed the Food Inspector Masturi to 3 lodge a criminal prosecution of the petitioners and the petitioners being aggrieved by the same, have come to challenge the same. He states that before passing of the impugned order no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner No.1. 3. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that after order dated 11-12-2024 which was passed against the petitioner No.1 against which the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal before the Collector, the same was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No.1 on a show cause notice who submitted reply and so far as the impugned order is concerned it is a consequential order for which there appears to be no need for giving opportunity of hearing and if any prosecution is launched, the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to law which is available to them, we do not find any substance in the present petition. 4. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil