2025:CGHC:29903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2755 of 2025 Sulochna Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Singhanpur Through Its Salesman Of Govt. Fair Price Shop Singhanpur I.D. No. 412003011) Santosh Kumar Kurre S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Singhanpur, Tah. Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Food Branch) Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Sarangarh District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - The Food Inspector Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Saumya Mahila Swa-Sahayta Samuh Kosir Id No. 412003012 Through Its Pres- ident, Village Kosir Tah. Ulkhar-Kosir, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Govt. Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 02.07.2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- a. That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records fo the petitioner’s case. b. That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 3 for non-compliance of the Rules 16(3) of CG Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. c. That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to consider the reply of the petitioner and grant proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passed afresh order in accordance with law. d. Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allotment of Govt. Fair Price Shop Singhanpur, has been cancelled without complying the provision of Order 16(3) of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System ( Control) Order 2016. The opportunity of hearing and making defence, has not been provided to the petitioner and the allotment of Govt. Fair Price Shop, has been cancelled which is illegal and against the law. 3) Learned counsel for the Respondent objected the prayer made by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and submits that due opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and thereafter the order was passed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5) Section 16(3) of the Chhattisgrah Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 16. Penalty- (1) If shopkeeper contravenes any provision of agreement, then he shall be liable for suspension or cancellation by the officer authorized for allotment of Fair Price Shop. The time limit for redressal of such cases shall not exceed three months. (2) During inspection of the shop, if any irregularity is found, then without prejudice to any action the whole or part of amount deposited by shopkeeper as security, shall be forfeited in favor of the State. (3)Before cancellation of authority letter of Fair Price Shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Officer of district, Sub-Divisional Officer of sub-division shall issue show cause notice and after giving him appropriate opportunity of hearing decision shall be made. 6) Reading of the said Rule would show that before cancellation of authority of fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or in part, the fair price shop keeper must be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard after the show cause notice is issued. 7) From perusal of the aforesaid fact, it is evident that there is a gross violation of rules of natural justice which also mandated by sub clause 3 of clause 16 of the Order, 2016. Consequently, this court can very well exercise the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it prima facie established that there is a breach of gross violation of rules of natural justice. 8) It is the well settled proposition of law that if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. 9) It is also the trite law that the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is an issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequences must be consisted with the rules of natural justice. 10) Applying the well established principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, it is quite vivid that the order impugned dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) appears to be passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitiner, the same cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside. 11) In view of the above, the petition is allowed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza