1 2025:CGHC:8338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 190 of 2022 1 Ganga Jal Women Self Help Group Chandoura Through President Sushila Yadav W/o Rajeshwar Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, President Of Ganga Jal Women Self Help Group Chandoura / Operator Of Government Fair Price Shop Chandoura R/o Village Chandoura Police Station Chalgali, Tahsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 The Collector (Food Department) Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 The Food Inspector Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5 Govt. Faire Price Shop Ranhat Police Chalgli, Tahsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.02.18 16:34:10 +0530 2 For Respondents/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner who is operating a fair price shop is questioning order dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 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 Govt. Fair Price Shop, Ranhat. 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 and in the meanwhile the order impugned had been passed by the respondent No. 3 by suspending the allotment of the shop. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-1). 3 5. Perusal of the order dated 28.12.2021 (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 respondent No. 3 is contrary to principles of natural justice, therefore, the order dated 28.12.2021 (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 Jyoti