1 2025:CGHC:38268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4104 of 2025 1 - Jai Shiv Sakti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Sahaspur Tahsil Devkar, District Bemetara (C.G.) Through Its President Smt. Durga Hansa, W/o Shri Upendra Hansa, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Sahaspur, Tahsil Devkar, Block Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Food Branch) District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Sub Division Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call 2 for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/s, diection/s thereby quashed/set-aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Respondent no. 3 and the petitioner society be permitted to run the fair price shop of Village Panchayat Sahaspur, Block Saja District Bemetara, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 has been passed by the respondent no. 3 without following the due process of law. He submits that the respondent no. 3 by a non speaking order, in a very arbitrary manner has cancelled the order of attachment in favour of the petitioner for operating and running the fair price shop. He therefore submits that the order passed by the respondent no. 3 is in violation of Rule 16(3) of the C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. 3. Learned Counsel for the State 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 3 merited warranting no interference in the said order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Rule 16(3) of C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 states as under: “(3) Before cancellation of authority letter of Fair Price Shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Officer of the district or Sub-Divisional Officer of sub-division shall issue show cause notice to Fair Price Shopkeeper and after giving an appropriate opportunity of being heard shall decide within a period of a month from issuance of show cause notice.” 6. Annexure P/4 would show that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner society but the respondent no. 3 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. 3 as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable and unsatisfactory. The impugned order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable when it is having civil consequences. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The order dated 23.06.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 is set aside. Respondent no. 4 3 would be at liberty to pass fresh speaking order after considering the entire material available, including reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima