1 / 4 2025:CGHC:61706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6448 of 2025 • Vrindawati Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Sankra Through Its, (1) President Namely Smt. Kumudani Sahu Aged About 50 Years W/o Minketan Sahu R/o- Village- Sankra Police Station And Tahsil-Sariya, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Mo. No. 8319399262 (2) Secretary- Namely Smt, Padminee Pradhan Aged About- 35 Years W/o Jagannath Pradhan R/o Village- Sankra Police Station And Tahsil - Sariya District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Mo. 7898508655 ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Civil Supplies And Food, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector Sarangarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4. Assistant Food Officer Food Department Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Purva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 17/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 4 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-1) is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioners are President and the Secretary of Vrindawati Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Sankra, they were allotted a fair price shop in the year 2019 and since then they are continuously managing and operating the fair price shop in accordance with law without any complaint. On 25.11.2025 at about 05:00 PM, fair price shop of petitioner was subject to surprise inspection as the inspection was conducted after 05:00 PM ie., after closing of the shop, the President and the Secretary were not available and they have sent some other male persons to open the shop and to facilitate the persons who came to inspect the shop. Thereafter, petitioner was served with a show-cause notice to which they have replied. However, without considering the reply filed by petitioner, order Annexure P-1 was passed suspending the fair price shop of petitioner and attaching it with Gram Pachayat, Tora, already running another fair price shop bearing fair price shop ID No. 412004098. He contended that in the order Annexure P-1, no reason has been assigned for arriving at a conclusion and not accepting the explanation offered by petitioner pursuant to show-cause notice issued to it and therefore the order Annexure P-1 is bad in law. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that when fair price shop allotted to petitioner was inspected, inspection team found some irregularities in the stock which is also noted and accordingly show-cause notice was issued to petitioner on 26.11.2025. Petitioner also submitted reply and only thereafter order Annexure P-1 was passed, as such there is compliance of principles of 3 / 4 natural justice. She also contended that according to her instruction, the enquiry on the allegations as levelled against petitioner pursuant to show- cause notice is still going on and the orders will be passed. She also submits that if this court comes to the conclusion that order Annexure P-1 is not a reasoned order then the respondents authority shall pass afresh order considering the reply submitted by petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Undisputedly, petitioner was allotted a fair price shop, it is governed by Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Section 16 of the Act talks of ‘Penalty’. Relevant portion of Section 16 is extracted below for ready reference. “16. Penalty.- (1) If the Shopkeeper contravenes any provision of the 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 the amount deposited by shopkeeper as security, shall be forfeited in favour of the State Government. (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. (4) to (8) x x x x x 6. Sub-section 1 of Section 16 envisages that upon finding contravention of any provision under Control Order 2016 by the shopkeeper, he shall be liable for suspension or cancellation by the officer authorized. From the language used under sub-section 1 of Section 16, it appears that penalty can be either of suspension or of cancellation. Suspension is also under the heading of penalty. Under the Control Order 2016 suspension is also nature of penalty 4 / 4 and therefore minimum which is required before passing order of suspension is to issue show-cause notice. If reply to show-cause notice is submitted, then considering the reply, to pass detailed and reasoned order as to why reply submitted and explanation offered against the show-cause notice is not acceptable, which is lacking in this case. 7. Annexure P-1 which is an order of suspension of authority to run fair price shop dated 01.12.2025 does not mention the ground of issuance of show- cause notice, explanation offered and as to why explanation offered by petitioner is not acceptable. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, order Annexure P-1 passing order of suspension which is in the nature of penalty under the Control Order 2016 is a non-speaking order and therefore it is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, Annexure P-1 order dated 01.12.2025 is set aside, reserving liberty with the respondents-authorities to pass an order afresh based on the show-cause notice, considering the reply submitted by petitioner and providing them opportunity. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE