1 2025:CGHC:33107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2739 of 2025 Maa Mahamaya Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Bhandhni Bhanwar, Block Lormi, District Mungeli Through Its President Smt. Durga Jaiswal, Wife Of Bhanupratap Jaiswal Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Bhandhni, Bhanwar, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Block Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - District Food Officer District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Food Inspector Block Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/07/2025 Heard. 1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner is seeking following relief (s) : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned suspension order dated 10/05/2025 issued by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lormi, District Mungeli, already annexed as Annexure P/1. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned enquiry report dated 30/04/2025 issued by the respondent no.05 Food Inspector, already annexed as Annexure P/2. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to conduct another physical verification of the stock of the fair price shop and consider proper weighing of the food grains and food packets in the stock and taking into consideration the stock of rice and other perishable goods being received and disbursed by the ration shop under various schemes of the Government, before incorporating any further proceeding of the petitioner's fair price shop. 10.4 Any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and 3 circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the Petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.3/SDO (R) passed the impugned order without following the due process of law and without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to Clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for brevity, “the Order, 2016”) which provides that before cancellation of authority letter of fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Inspector of the District or the Sub-Divisional Officer shall issue notice to the shopkeeper and after giving an opportunity of being heard shall decide within a period of one month from issuance of show cause notice. He would further submit that the petitioner is running the fair price shop which has been allotted in his favour in a proper manner and he has not committed any illegality at all. 3. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State would submit that on the basis of the report of the Food Inspector, such an irregularities were found and thereafter proper enquiry was conducted and the cancellation order has been passed. The enquiry is still pending under Clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Thus, order impugned is warranting to no interference. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The State of Chhattisgarh has framed the Order, 2016 in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Chhattisgarh Food and Nutritional Security Act, 2012 named as Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. Order 16 speaks about penalty. The relevant part is read as under : "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 favour 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 or Sub- Divisional Officer of sub- division shall issue show cause notice to Fair Price Shopkeeper and after giving an appropriate opportunity of being heard shall decide 5 within a period of a month from issuance of show cause notice." 6. On bare perusal of the aforesaid Clause, it is crystal clear that 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. In the present case, the authorized officer has suspended the fair price shop of the petitioner and order passed for enquiry which is still pending before the concerned authority. It is also pertinent to mention here that the show cause notice was issued by the SDO (R) to the petitioner and the petitioner has already been submitted reply before the SDO(R). At this juncture, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, therefore, there is no prima facie violation of any rules or regulations. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, respondent No.3/SDO (R) is directed to decide the pending enquiry within ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with rules, regulations and law and petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate appeal or petition, if any cause of action arises later on. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant