1 2025:CGHC:42337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4482 of 2025 1 - Durga Women Self Help Group- Serangdag Through Its Secretary Smt. Urmila Sonwani W/o Dilraj Sonwani, Aged About 39 Years, Secretary Of Durga Women Self Help Group - Serangdag R/o Village - Serangdag, P.S. And Tahsil - Samari, Distt - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector (Food Department) Distt - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kushami, Distt - Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4 - The Food Inspector Kushami Distt - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5 - Govt. Faire Price Shop Nagar Panchayat - Kushami-2, Operator Of President Of Yekta Women Self Help Group Kushami R/o Kushami, Tahsil - Kushami, Distt - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/08/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 23.07.2025 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.28 11:36:20 +0530 2 3. (Annexure -P/5), whereby fair price shop allotted to the petitioner- Society has been suspended. 4. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop in the year 2022 and since then the society is running the shop. On 10.03.2025, respondent No.3 gave a show-cause-notice to the President/Secretary of the petitioner-society asking to file the reply till 17.03.2025, to which, petitioner has file the reply. Thereafter on 23.07.2025, respondent No.3 has passed the order impugned suspending the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner society without providing any document or recording the statement of the witnesses. Hence, this petition. 5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned dated 23.07.2025 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 suspended the order of attachment in favour of the petitioner for operating and running the fair price shop. He further submits that impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is in violation of Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 and after receiving the reply, the respondent/State ought to have conducted an enquiry against the petitioner with regard to the veracity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that though a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, it was duly considered and thereafter the suspension order has been passed and thus, the order impugned is well merited warranting no interference in the said order. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. It appears that the order passed by the respondent No.3 is without considering the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner in an 3 objective manner and has not passed any speaking order. Perusal of the order Annexure P/5 would how that the sow cause notice was issued to the petitioner and reply to the show cause notice was submitted by 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 23.07.2025 (Annexure- P/4) is not sustainable when it is having civil consequences. Opportunity of hearing means on the reply call for and submitted there should be proper application of mind by the authority. 9. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P/5) is set aside. However, respondent No.3 would be at liberty to pass fresh speaking order in accordance with Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 after considering the entire material available, including reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner at the earliest. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti