1 2025:CGHC:33971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3734 of 2025 1 - Kisan Vipnan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Gunderdehi Through- Its Assistant Manager Santosh K. Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Shishupal Singh Chandrakar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Chirpoti, P.S. Anda, District Durg (C.G.) ... 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 (C.G.) 2 - The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office Balod District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Food Controller Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) 6 - Government Fair Price Shop Gorkapar (Id No. 432003023) Through Its President Block Gunderdehi District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Akansha Verma Dabhadkar, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the order dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent no. 5 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) and petitioner society may kindly be pleased to allow to run fair price shop at Village Tamora (ID No. 432003022) Block Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 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 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 C.G. 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. He prays for a similar order passed by this Court in WPC No. 3428 of 2025 on 04.07.2025. 3. Learned Counsel for the State 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. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 5. It appears that the order passed by the respondent no. 5 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 show that the show cause notice was issued to 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 24.09.2024 (Annexure P/4) is not sustainable when it is having civil consequences. Opportunity of hearing means on the reply call for and submitted there should be proper application of mind by the authority. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The order dated 24.09.2024 passed by 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 Madhurima