1 2025:CGHC:5520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 635 of 2025 1 - Ma Durga Khaadya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Barima Through President Awadh Kishor Yadav S/o Rambali Yadav Aged About- 30 Years, President Of Ma Durga Khaadya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit - Barima R/o Village- Barima, Tahsil- Mainpat Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New- Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Food Department) Surguja (Ambikapur) Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sitapur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Food Inspector Batouli, Tahsil- Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - President Of Luxmi Women Self Help Group Barima / Operator Of Faire Price Shop- Barima Tahsil- Mainpat, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, PL RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.31 16:56:30 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15/10/2024 passed by respondent No.3/ SDO (Revenue), Sitapur, District- Surguja by which the fair price shop allotted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that reply filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent/SDO passed the impugned order without following the due process of law and without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for brevity, “the Order, 2016”) which provides that before cancellation of authority letter of fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Inspector of the District or the Sub- Divisional Officer shall issue notice to the shopkeeper and after giving an opportunity of being heard shall decide within a period of one month from issuance of show cause notice. He would further submit that the petitioner is running the fair price shop which has been allotted in his favour in a proper manner and he has not committed any illegality at all. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that on the basis of the report of the Food Inspector, such 3 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 order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The State of Chhattisgarh has framed the Order, 2016 in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 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 15/10/2024 (Annexure P/1) 5 appears to be passed without giving an appropriate opportunity of 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/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul