1 2025:CGHC:5952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 671 of 2025 1 - Nishad Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Anjora Kha Through Its President Parvati Bai Nishad W/o Tularam Nishad Aged About - 51 Years R/o House No. 1/1 / G, Birejhar Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Executive OfÏcer Janpad Panchayat Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - District Manager Municipal Supply Corpration Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Food OfÏcer Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - Maa Chandika Primary Fair Price Shop Through Its President Kamlesh Kumar Pawar R/o Khapri (Silauda) Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.03 23:28:15 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) :Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State :Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is a self-help group, questioning the order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the SDO (R) Durg by which the allotment /attachment of Fair Price Shop at Birejhar has been cancelled and again attached to the respondent no. 5 i.e. Maa Chandika Primary Fair Price Shop. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned has been made by the respondent authorities without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as there is some irregularities committed by the petitioner and impugned order has been passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-1). 5. It appears from the order, that the order has been passed by the SDO (R) is an unreasoned and non-speaking order that too without assigning any reason as to why the same has been passed. It appears from the order that before issuance of the order, no opportunity of hearing or notice has been issued to the petitioner. 3 6. In the case of East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others1 the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms has held that arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order. 7. Likewise, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers2, the Supreme Court has held that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. 8. Hence, the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the SDO(R) is quashed, however liberty is reserved for the respondent to take action against the petitioner, if so desire, in accordance with law by providing providing sufÏcient opportunity of hearing to all the 1 (2010) 7 SCC 678 2 (2010) 4 SCC785 4 parties including the respondent No. 5, as early as possible preferably within a period of 30 days. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib