1 2025:CGHC:36460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3909 of 2025 1 - Khaadya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Ramnagarkala Through President Dipankar Mandal S/o Shankar Mandal, Aged About 29 Years, President Of Khaadya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Ramnagarkala R/o Village- Ramnagarkala, P.S. And Tahsil- Balrampur, Distt- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Balrampur (Food Department) Distt- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balrampur Distt- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Food Inspector- Balrampur Distt- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Govt. Faire Price Shop- Krishnanagar President Of Radhe Radhe Women Self Help Group- Krishnanagar, R/o Village- Krishnanagar, P.S. And Tahsil- Balrampur Dist.- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Akansha Verma Dabhadkar Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 28/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the 2 following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 Annexure P/5 issued by the respondent no. 3. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 allotted the fair price shop of Village-Ramnagarkala to the petitioner on 22.02.2022 and after allotment, petitioner was regularly operating the fair price shop and there was no complaint against the petitioner. On 09.05.2025, respondent no. 5 prepared the inspection report of the shop of petitioner and found some deficiency in the shop of petitioner and the same was not served to the petitioner and sent the report to respondent no. 4. On the basis of said report, respondent no. 3 issued the show cause notice to the petitioner and directed to file the reply and after receiving the notice, petitiner submitted the reply and submitted that he has not committed any irregularity in the operation of the shop. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the order passed by respondent no. 3 is speaking order on the basis of the report of the Food Inspector, such an irregularities were found and thereafter proper enquiry was conducted and the suspension order has 3 been passed. Thus, the order impugned is well merited warranting no interference of this order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P/5) would show that the order of suspension of fair price shop allotted to the petitioner is a speaking order. The impugned order is reflecting that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and his reply was considered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by respondent no. 3 is a speaking order and not contrary to the principles of natural justice. However, the respondent authorities are directed to verify the facts after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass the final order in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the effected parties. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima