1 2025:CGHC:2635 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 276 of 2025 1. Lashita Women Selp Help Group Through Treasurer Smt. Chanda Yadav W/o Ramji Yadav Aged About 38 Years Treasurer Of Lashita Women Self Help Group - Patharripara R/o Patharripara, Tahsil- Korba Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New- Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector (Food Department) Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) 3. The Food Officer Korba Distt- Korba (C.G.) 4. The Food Inspector Korba Town, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 5. President Of Bhadrapara Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar- Bhadrapara/ Operator Of Govt. Faire Price Shop- Bhadrapara, I.D. No. 551001020 - Bhadrapara, P.S. And Tahsil- Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State: Mr. Rishabh Bisen, P.L. 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present petition, the petitioner who is operating a fair price shop is questioning order dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). The SDO (Revenue) by exercising his power under Clause 16 (1) of the Public Distribution System (PDS) Control Order, 2016, suspended the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner and by the same order it has been attached to Bhadarapara Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar, Bhadarapara, Korba (PDS ID- 551001020). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before suspending the allotment of fair price shop the respondent authorities have not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that though the show cause notice has been issued and reply has been submitted by the petitioner but without considering the same and reflecting the details in the impugned order, the order of suspension has been passed. He further submits that the order of suspension is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the order of suspension is under Clause 16 (1) of Public Distribution System (PDS) Control Order 2016. He further submits that the final order about the irregularities of the petitioner is yet to be passed by the authorities 3 and in the meanwhile the order impugned had been passed by the SDO (Revenue) by suspending the allotment of the shop. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure P-1). 5. Perusal of the order dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) would show that the order of suspension of fair price shop allotted to the petitioner is a nonspeaking order. Further, as to whether show cause notice has been issued and reply is submitted by the petitioner is not stated in the order. The impugned order is not reflecting whether the reply of the petitioner is considered or not. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the view that the order of the SDO (Revenue) is contrary to principles of natural justice, therefore, the order dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) is set aside till the final order on the irregularities of the petitioner alleged against him. However, the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate final order in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the effected parties. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar