1 2025:CGHC:37895 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4062 of 2025 1 - Laxmi Mahila Sva-Sahayata Samuh Through Its President Smt. Janki Sahu W/o Laxman Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Navagaon Kala, Chhirha, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector (Food Department) Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Food Officer Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Food Inspector Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 6 - Sangwari Khadya Suraksha Poshan Avam Upbhokta Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Modhe, Shop Majgaon, Block Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate and suitable writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order which may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case including cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 5/ SDO (R) passed the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 without following the due process of law and without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and allotted the fair price shop to the respondent no. 6. The said impugned order passed by respondent no. 5 is contrary to Clause 16(3) of the C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for brevity, “the Order, 2016”) which provides that before cancellation of authority letter of fair price shop or before cancellation of authority letter of fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Inspector of the District or the Sub-Divisional Officer shall issue notice to the shopkeeper and after giving an opportunity of being heard shall decide within a period of one 3 month from issuance of show cause notice. He would further submit that the petitioner is running the fair price shop which has been allotted in his favour in a proper manner and he has not committed any illegality at all. 3. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State would submit that on the basis of the report of the Food Inspector, such an irregularities were found and thereafter proper enquiry was conducted and the cancellation order has been passed and allotted the fair price shop to the respondent no. 6. The enquiry is still pending under Clause 16(3) of the C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. thus, order impugned is warranting no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The State of C.G. has framed the Order, 2016 in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the C.G. Food and Nutritional Security Act, 2012 named as C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Order 16 speaks about penalty. The relevant part is read asunder: 6. On bare perusal of the aforesaid Clause, it is crystal clear that if shopkeeper contravenes any provision of agreement, then he shall be liable for suspension or cancellation by the officer authorized for allotment of Fair Price Shop. In the present case, the authorized officer has suspended the fair price shop of the petitioner and order passed for enquiry which is still pending before the concerned authority. 7. It is also pertinent to mention here that the show cause notice was issued by the SDO (R) to the petitioner and the petitioner has already submitted 4 reply before the SDO (R). At this juncture, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, therefore, there is no prima facie violation of any rules or regulations. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, respondent no. 5/SDO (R) is directed to decide the pending enquiry within ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with rules, regulations and law and petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate appeal or petition, if any cause of action arises later on. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima