1 2025:CGHC:7958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 165 of 2022 1 - Mahila Bachat Samuh Talwapara Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh Through Its President Smt. Shivkumari Sahu W/o Shri Ishawar Chand Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Talwapara Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Under Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supplies Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Koriya Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 4 - Food Inspector Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 5 - Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Vishwanath Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Talwapara Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.14 15:37:39 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer. For respondent No.5 : Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajpur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 14/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 06/11/2021 passed by the Collector, order dated 12/03/2021 passed by the SDO(Revenue) and order dated 07/05/2021 Annexure P-3. 2. Learend counsel for the petitioner submits that the Fair Price Shop allotted to the petitioner has been canceled by the SDO vide order dated 12/03/2021 pursuance to issuance of show cause notice dated 22/01/2021 issued by the SDO(R), by which, the SDO has issued a show cause notice seeking explanation that the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop was selling Sugar at higher rate and the complaint made by the respondent was found to be true and hence, the act of the petitioner is contrary to the Clause 11(5) and 13(1) of the C.G. Public Distribution of the Control order, 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply, which was also submitted to the Food Officer by explaining the allegation made in the complaint. He further submits that though the petitioner has submitted a reply to the said show cause notice explaining the allegation made against him, but the SDO has passed the 3 order canceling the Fair Price Shop allotted to the petitioner without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner by a non-speaking and unreasoned order. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the order of the SDO is based on the enquiry conducted by the then Food Inspector, who has enquired about the complaint lodged by the private respondent No.5-Deepak Kumar Sahu and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Food Inspector, the action has been taken against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 reiterated the submission made by the learned State counsel and supported the action taken by the respondent against the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 12/03/2021, by which, the SDO has passed the order by canceling the allotment of Fair Price Shop to the petitioner. 6. From perusal of the order, by which, the allotment has been canceled, it appears that the SDO has passed a non-speaking and unreasoned order without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The order impugned of the SDO is based on the enquiry report submitted by the then Food Inspector. The petitioner has explained the notice issued to the Food Inspector as well as to the SDO, however, but without considering and discussing the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the SDO has passed the order 4 impugned which is non-speaking and unreasoned order. 7. In the case of East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others1 the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms has held that arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order. 8. Likewise, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers2, the Supreme Court has held that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. 9. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the 1 (2010) 7 SCC 678 2 (2010) 4 SCC785 5 present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order dated 12/03/2021 passed by the SDO as well as the order dated 06/11/2021 passed by the Collector in the appeal and subsequent order dated 07/05/2021 are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved for the State to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep