1 2025:CGHC:42841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4527 of 2025 1 - Jai Ma Durga Bhawani Mahila Sava Sahayeta Samuh Tenduwa Through President Kamal Hasan W/o Malik Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Tenduwa, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - The Food Inspector, Saja, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Jai Satnam Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh, Gudwa Through President Lula W/o Shantanu, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gudwa, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following relief: 2 “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash Annexure P/1 order dated 27.06.2025 further respondent authorities may be directed to hand over the charge of fair price shop to petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/writs which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby the fair price shop allotted to petitioner has been cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing in contravention with Clause 16(3) of C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. 3. Learned State Counsel 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. Thus, the order impugned is well merited warranting no interference of this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The State of Chhattisgarh has framed the Order, 2016 in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 3 and the Chhattisgarh Food and Nutritional Security Act, 2012 named as Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. Order 16 speaks about Penalty. The relevant part is read as under: “16. Penalty- (1) 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. The time limit for redressal of such cases shall not exceed three months. (2) During inspection of the shop, if any irregularity is found, then without prejudice to any action the whole or part of amount deposited by shopkeeper as security, shall be forfeited in favour of the State. (3) Before cancellation of authority letter of Fair Price Shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Officer of 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. Reading of the said Rule would show that before cancellation of 4 authority of fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or in part, the fair price shop keeper must be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard after the show cause notice is issued. 7. From perusal of the aforesaid fact, it is evident that there is a gross violation of rules of natural justice which also mandated by sub- clause 3 of clause 16 of the Order, 2016. Consequently, this Court can very well exercise the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it prima facie established that there is a breach of gross violation of rules of natural justice. 8. It is the well settled proposition of law that if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. 9. It is also the trite law that the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is an issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consisted with the rules of natural justice. 10. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, it is quite vivid that the order impugned dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) appears to be passed without giving an appropriate opportunity of 5 being heard to the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside. 11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima