1 2025:CGHC:1958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 171 of 2025 1 Jai Maa Sitla Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Sursabandha Through- Its President Smt. Indrani Sahu W/o Late Than Singh Sahu, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Sursabandha, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur C.G. 2 The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. 3 The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office District- Gariyaband C.G. 4 Food Controller District Gariyaband C.G. 5 The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Rajim, District Gariyaband C.G. 6 Krishak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Kopra Tahsil Rajim District Gariyaband C.G. 7 Govt. Fair Price Shop Vill. Tarra, I.D. No. 442013025, Tah. Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri A.S. Rajput, Advocate 2 For Respondent(s) / State : Shri Rishabh Bisen, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 13/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present petition the petitioner is questioning order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the SDO complying with the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 5693 of 2024 dated 18.11.2024, wherein, the order dated 08.10.2024 (suspension of fair price shop) has been maintained. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier writ petition was disposed off by order dated 18.11.2024, by staying the effect and operation of order dated 08.10.2024 with a direction to Respondent No. 5 to decide the case of the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, in accordance with law. He further submits that while staying the effect and operation of order dated 08.10.2024, it was observed by the Coordinate Bench that order dated 08.10.2024 is not found to be sustainable. He further submits that inspite of the said observation, again exactly same order has been passed by the SDO on 17.12.2024. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the SDO dated 17.12.2024 is a reiteration of earlier order dated 08.10.2024 and the same has been passed again in the same manner. He would lastly submit that the order dated 17.12.2024 is a non speaking and unreasoned order and deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P- 8) has been passed by the same authority but is passed after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached. 5. Perusal of order dated 08.10.2024 and 17.12.2024, passed by the SDO (Revenue) shows that both the orders are same and there is no change in the order, inspite of the fact, that in the order of the Coordinate Bench it was observed to be unsustainable as it not reflects that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and other irregularities alleged therein. In the present order dated 17.12.2024 also, though it has been mentioned, that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner but the contents of the notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered and by a non- speaking order again the same order has been passed reiterated by maintaining the order dated 08.10.2024. Hence, the order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and the SDO (Revenue) is again directed to pass a detailed and speaking order as directed by this Court in WPC NO. 5693 of 2024 within a period of 20 days from today. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti