1 / 3 2025:CGHC:32535 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3516 of 2025 Maa Mahamaya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Nagpura, Village-Nagpura, Tahsil-Dadhi, Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) Through Antram Sahu, S/o Late Shri Thanuram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village-Nagpura, Tahsil-Dadhi, Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector (Food Section) Bemetara, Distt - Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bemetara, Distt - Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Food Officer, Saja, Distt - Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Karma Mata Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Chargoan, Village - Chargoan, Tahsil- Dadhi, Distt - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 13/06/2025 passed by the Respondent No.3 whereby the Fair Price ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.07.15 14:37:20 +0530 2 / 3 Shop of the petitioner has been suspended with immediate effect without giving proper opportunity of hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Respondent No.3 has suspended the Fair Price Shop rub by the petitioner Society by order dated 13/06/2025 with immediate effect. He would next contend that the order passed is in violation of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and Provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He would next contend that the SDO (Revenue) has issued show-cause notice on 03/06/2025 to the petitioner and the petitioner made reply on 09th June, 2025 mentioning that the deficiency in rice and sugar was due to the poor quality and torn sacks and the petitioner has compensated the deficit already and on 13/06/2025 the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as provided in Clause 16 (3) of the Control Order, 2016. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that before the license was suspended a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has also submitted the reply which was not found satisfactory by the concerned authority. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and 3 / 3 after perusal of the record, I have found that only show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after submission of reply by the petitioner, the concerned authority has passed the order without giving proper opportunity of hearing and has passed the order not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, therefore, it is a violation of Clause 16 (3) of the Control Order, 2016. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13/06/2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the SDO (Revenue), Bemetara to decide the case afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter shall pass afresh order in accordance with law. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities shall be at liberty to decide the case on its own merits. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu