1 2025:CGHC:3444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4661 of 2024 1 - Vikas Svyam Sahayata Samuh, Silma Through The President Susanna Tirkey W/o Shri Vishwanath Tirkey, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Silma, Block - Batauli, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District - Surguja, Chattisgarh. 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sitapur, District - Surguja, Chattisgarh. 4 - The Food Inspector, Batauli, District - Surguja, Chattisgarh. 5 - Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sedam (Basen), Block- Sitapur, District - Surguja, Chattisgarh. I.D. No. 392004035 Through Its Secretary. ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.21 18:17:20 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Nitesh Shrivas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order Annexure P-1 dated 23/08/2024, by which, the SDO(Revenue)/respondent No.3 has cancelled the allotment of fair price shop of the petitioner and it was attached to the respondent No.5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before suspending the allotment of fair price shop, the respondent authorities have not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that though the show cause notice has been issued and reply has been submitted by the petitioner, but without considering the same, the order of cancellation of allotment of fair price shop has been passed. He further submits that the order of suspension is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the order of suspension is under Clause 16 (1) of Public Distribution System (PDS) Control Order 2016. He further submits that the final order about the irregularities of the petitioner is yet to be passed by the authorities and in the meanwhile the order impugned had been passed by the SDO (Revenue) by suspending the allotment of the shop. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Perusal of the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) would show that the order of suspension of fair price shop allotted to the petitioner is a non-speaking order. Further, as show cause notice has been issued and reply is submitted, the impugned order is not reflecting whether the reply of the petitioner is considered or not. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the view that the order of the SDO (Revenue) is contrary to principles of natural justice, therefore, the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) is set aside till the final order on the irregularities of the petitioner alleged against him. However, the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate final order in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from today by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep