1 2025:CGHC:36042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3896 of 2025 1 - Government Fair Price Shop Boirdhi (I.D. No. 412003089) Through Its President Ishwar Prasad Patel S/o Shri Chhatram Patel, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village- Boirdih, Madhupali, Tah. Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Food Branch), Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.). 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sarangarh Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar, Sarangarh Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - The Food Inspector, Sarangarh Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Shri Ganesh Khaday Suraksha Poshan Awam Upbhogta Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Madhopali, Id No. 412003087, Through Its President, Village- Madhopali, Tah. Sarangarh Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner’s case. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent no. 3 for non-compliance of the Rules 16(3) of C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to grant opportunity to file reply by the petitioner and also grant proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and passed afresh order in accordance with law. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the the petitioner runs the Fair Price Shop in Village Boirdih an on 28.08.2024 the inspection was made by the respondent no. 5 in which he found shortage of stock of grains and held that an amount of Rs/ 11,10,337/- is recoverable from the petitioner. On 03.09.2024 the Respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to file reply till 3 18.09.2024 and on the same date the petitioner was not present and on 30.09.2024 the respondent no. 3 passed an order and allotment of Fair Price Shop to the petitioner was suspended and was temporarily allotted to respondent no. 6. The case was fixed on 27.01.2025 but the petitioner has not filed his reply to the show cause notice till date. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that the SDO (R) has given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but the petitioner has neither appeared before the concerned SDO (R) nor has filed his reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, the learned SDO (R) has passed the order as per the provisions of Section 16(3) of C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. On perusal of record this Court found that on 03.09.2024 respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner stating that during physical verification of the stock there were shortage of rice,, sugar, salt, etc. and an amount of Rs/ 11,10,337/- is recoverable from the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 fixed the case on 18.09.2024 for reply of the petitioner. But on the said date the petitioner neither appear before the authority nor filed his reply. Annexure P/4 reveals that the petitioner was provided ample of opportunity for filing of his reply to the show cause notice on 18.09.2024, 27.09.2024, 18.10.2024, 18.11.2024, 09.12.2024, 30.12.2024, 20.01.2025, 05.03.2025, 12.03.2025, 14.04.2025. Thereafter on 01.05.2025 the respondent no. 3 suspended the license to run Fair Price Shop of the petitioner and temporarily allotted it to respondent no. 4 6. 6. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court found that the SDO (R) has complied with the provisions under Section 16(1) and 16(3) of C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. Hence, this petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appeal before the Collector with all relevant documents, if he so desires. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima