1 2025:CGHC:34427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3785 of 2025 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 Beloudi (I D No. 432003103) Through Its President Block Gunderdehi District Balod C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.07.21 17:10:36 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/07/2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner has been filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside /quash the order dated 24.09.24 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.5 Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) and petitioner society may kindly be pleased to allow to run fair price shop at village Mokha (ID No.432003088) 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. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.09.24 passed by respondent No.5 Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) by which the respondent no.5 has amended the earlier attachment order in favour of petitioner society regarding fair price shop of village Bhendara and attached with the respondent no.6 without speaking order, without supplying any documents, without enquiry and in violation of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016, the 3 case of the petitioner is covered from order dated 04.07.25 and order dated 11.07.23 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.3428/2025 and W.P.(C) No.3099/2023. Hence this petition. 3. On the other hand, 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the record, it appears that the order passed by respondent No.5-SDO (R ) 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/4) 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 4 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 supplication of mind by the authority. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The order dated 24.09.2024 (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. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant