1 2025:CGHC:1957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 169 of 2025 1 Santoshi Sahu W/o Manharan Sahu Aged About 40 Years President Of Sonchiraiya Maa Khadya Suraksha Poshan Evam Upbhokta Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Pahanda, Post Pahanda, Block Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 Collector, (Food Branch) District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 Food Inspector Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 13/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present petition the petitioner who is operating a fair price shop is questioning order dated 03.01.2025 (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 was attached to Om Sai Khadya Surksha Poshan & Upbokta Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Devri. 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 SDO (Revenue) by suspending the allotment of the shop. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-1). 5. Perusal of the order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) would show that the order of suspension of fair price shop allotted to the petitioner is a non 3 speaking order. Further, as show cause notice has been issued and reply is submitted 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 03.01.2025 (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 today. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti