1 / 3 2025:CGHC:7182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 831 of 2025 1 - Geeta Bai Yadav W/o Baldau Prasad Yadav Aged About 33 Years Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Udangi, R/o Gram Panchayat, Udangi, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Food Inspector, Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kukda, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Through The President, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kukda, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) 2 / 3 For Petitioner :Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondents/State :Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 10/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is operating a fair price shop is questioning the order dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, District Bilaspur. The SDO (Revenue) by exercising his power under Clause 16 (1) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, suspended the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner and by the same order, it was attached to Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kukda, Masturi, Bilaspur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before suspending the allotment of fair price shop, the respondent authorities have not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that though the show cause notice has been issued and reply has been submitted by the petitioner but without considering the same and reflecting the details in the impugned order, the order of suspension has been passed. He further submits that the order of suspension is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the order of suspension is under Clause 16 (1) of Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. He further submits that the final order about the irregularities of the petitioner is yet to be passed by the authorities 3 / 3 and in the meanwhile the order impugned had been passed by the SDO (Revenue) by suspending the allotment of the shop. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-1). 5. Perusal of the order dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) would show that the order of suspension of fair price shop allotted to the petitioner is a non speaking order. Further, as to whether the show cause notice has been issued and reply is submitted by the petitioner is not stated in the order. The impugned order is not reflecting whether the reply of the petitioner is considered or not. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the view that the order of the SDO (Revenue) is contrary to principles of natural justice, therefore, the order dated 03.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) is set aside till the final order on the irregularities of the petitioner alleged against him, be passed. However, the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate final order in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the parties including the respondent No.6. 6. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar