1 2025:CGHC:30694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3428 of 2025 1 - Durgawati Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Karhani Through Its President Smt. Rambai Sarouta W/o Shri Ashok Singh Sarouta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Karhani, Tahsil And Block Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office District Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh 4 - Food Controller District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh 6 - Raj Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Village Panchayat Podi, Through 2 Its President, Tahsil And Block Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri A.S.Rajput, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Swajeet Singh Ubeja, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/07/2025 Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-P/4) whereby the respondent No.5/Sub divisional Officer (Revenue) Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi whereby the fair price shop allotted to the petitioner Society has been suspended. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop in the year 2015 and since then the society is running the shop. On 15.05.2025 the respondent No.5 gave a show cause notice to the President/Secretary of the petitioner society asking to file the reply by 19.05.2025. Thereafter on 23.06.2025, the respondent No.5 passed the order impugned suspending the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner society without providing any document or recording the statement of the witnesses. It is against this order the petitioner society has filed the instant petition. 3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned dated 23.06.2025 has been passed by the respondent No.5 without following the due process of law. He submits that the respondent No.5 by a non speaking order, in a very arbitrary manner has cancelled the order of attachment in favour of the petitioner for 3 operating and running the fair price shop. He therefore submits that the order passed by the respondent No.5 is in violation of Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 and after receiving the reply, the respondent/State ought to have conducted an enquiry against the petitioner with regard to the veracity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that though a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, it was duly considered and thereafter the cancellation order has been passed and thus, the order impugned is well merited warranting no interference in the said order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It appears that the order passed by the respondent No.6 is without considering the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner in an objective manner and has not passed any speaking order. Perusal of the order (Annexure P/2) would how that the sow cause notice was issued to the petitioner and reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner society but the respondent No.5 has only observed that reply submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Nothing has been mentioned or discussed as to what irregularities were found by the inspecting authority and explanation offered on behalf of the petitioner’s point of view. In absence of any finding recorded by the respondent No.5 as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable and unsatisfactory. The impugned order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-P/4) is not susptai9nable when it is having civil consequences. Opportunity of hearing means on 4 the reply call for and submitted there should be proper supplication of mind by the authority. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No.5 is set aside. Respondent No.5 would be at liberty to pass fresh speaking order after considering the entire material available, including reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.08 10:39:30 +0530