1 2025:CGHC:10146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 112 of 2023 1 - Lata Mahila Swa. Sahayata Samooh Radhika Nagar Shop Id No. 431004009 Ward No. 04 Supela Bhilai, Through Its President Smt. Pramila Yadav W/o Uday Shanker Aged About 49 Years R/o Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Lallan Yadav S/o Late Natha Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Camp No. 01, Adarsh Nagar Bhilai, Salesman, Lata Mahila Swa. Sahayata Samooh, Radika Nagar Shop I D No. 431004009 Ward No. 04 Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Collector Durg Dist. Durg (C.G.) 2 - Food Controller Durg Dist. Durg (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G) 4 - Jai Ma Laxmi Devi Darshan Mahila Swa. Sahayata Samooh Shop Id No. 431004010 Ward No. 4, Through Its President Smt. Lila Devi, Laxmi Nagar Supela Bhilai Dist. Durg (C.G.) 5 - Shri Sundar Lal S/o Godu, Salesman, Jai Ma Laxmi Devi Darshan Mahila Swa. Sahayata Samooh, Shop Id No. 431004010, Ward No. 4, R/o Laxmi Nagar Supela Bhilai Dist. Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.04 13:13:57 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the order dated 21/10/2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Joint Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Food and Civil Supply Consumer Protection Department, whereby the Joint Secretary has affirmed the order of Appellate Authority i.e. Collector dated 19/03/2019 which was arising out of order dated 06/06/2018 passed by the Food Controller, Durg. 2. (I) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Food Controller has passed an order of cancellation of allotment of fair price shop of the petitioners on the basis of inquiry report submitted by a team constituted by the Food Controller, wherein, it was found that the distribution of articles was being done on the basis of fake ration cards. Whereas, the petitioners have no role in preparation of the fake Ration cards. (II) Learned counsel would further submit that on the similar set of allegation, an inquiry report dated 07/04/2018 was submitted against respondent no. 4 & 5, however, they have only been penalized with a penalty of Rs. 5000/- along with a warning not to repeat such act. However, in the case of the petitioners, the Food Inspector has taken a different yardstick, and subsequently, the allotment of fair price shops of the petitioners has been cancelled which is a severe punishment. He would next submit that the act of the respondent/Food Controller is 3 discriminatory in nature as he has taken two different stands for same allegations to a different parties, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. (III) He would lastly submit that despite of such act and discriminatory brought in the knowledge of Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has not considered the grievance of the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that as far as the writ petition questioning the order of Food Controller, the orders of Additional Collector and the Joint Secretary is concerned, it is quite clear that the order of Food Controller has been affirmed by the two authorities, and as such there is no illegality in the said orders, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 21/10/2022 (Annexure-P/1), order dated 06/06/2018 and the order passed against respondent No. 4 & 5 (Annexure-P/10). 5. It appears from the pleadings and record placed along with the writ petition that the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 & 5 by the Food Controller on the allegations that distribution of articles was being made by them on the basis of faked Ration cards. It is quite clear that on the same allegation, the Food Controller has taken two different stands because in the case of respondent No. 4 & 5, only punishment of Rs. 5000/- has been imposed with a warning, whereas in the case of the petitioners, the terms of the 4 Fair Price shop has been cancelled. The Food Controller cannot take two different stands for similar allegations against two different persons. It is also vivid from the record that Joint Secretary has not considered the case of the petitioners inspite of the fact that the petitioner had brought these facts before the Food Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. However, without considering the same, the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21/10/2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, whereby the orders of Additional Collector and Food Controller was affirmed, is quashed. 6. The matter is remitted to the Food Controller for fresh consideration and decision in the case of the petitioners by affording proper opportunity of hearing and by keeping in mind that for similar allegation, the Food Controller had imposed punishment of Rs. 5000/- with a warning to respondent No. 4 & 5. It is directed that the petitioners shall apprize the order of this Court to the Food Controller within a period of 15 days who shall consider the case of the petitioners and shall take a decision within a period of 30 days. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul