1 2026:CGHC:9179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 763 of 2026 Aprajita Self Help Group Kelhari Through Secretary Smt. Kanti Mishra, W/o Prembaba Mishra, Aged About 55 Years, Secretary Of Aprajita Self Help Group- Kelhari R/o Village- Bichhiyatola (Kelhari), Tahsil- Kelhari, Distt- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ... Petitioner 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) Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)- Kelhari, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur C.G. 4 - The Food Inspector- Kelhari, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. 5 - Operator Of Govt. Fair Price Shop Of Village- Kewati I.D. No. 532002054, Village- Kewati, Tahsil- Kelhari, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 20/02/2026 2 1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure-P-1), whereby, respondents No.3, having recorded that the petitioner committed irregularities while operating the government fair price shop named & styled as “Aprajita Self Help Group-Kelhari, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur” through Secretary Smt. Kannti Mishra, which the petitioner was operating under allotment, has cancelled the allotment of fair price shop. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority, the petitioner is operating the government fair price shop named & styled as “Aprajita Self Help Group-Kelhari, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur”. Based on some report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner regarding irregularities reported in operating the fair price shop. The petitioner submitted reply to show cause notice, however, the respondents authorities have not considered the reply to the show cause notice and by non-speaking order (Annexure P-1), in a very arbitrary manner, has cancelled the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner for operating and running the aforesaid government fair price shop. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the order passed by respondent No.3 is not a speaking order and is passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, therefore, it be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order has been passed by respondent No.3 after due compliance of the principles of natural justice. Inspection of fair price shop has been done. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation on the irregularities found by the inspecting authority and only thereafter, the order Annexure P-1 is passed. Therefore, it does not call for any interference. 4. When specific query was put to learned State counsel as to the point wise consideration on the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, 3 he fairly submits that it is missing. He however pointed out that authorities have considered the reply submitted by representative of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Short point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that order passed by respondent No.3 is without considering the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner in appropriate manner and not passing speaking order. Perusal of order Annexure P-1 would show that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and representative of the petitioner has also submitted reply to the show cause notice. Respondent No.3 has only observed that allegation levelled against the operators of the shop is being confirmed through the show-cause notice. There is no discussion as to what irregularities were found by inspecting authority, and explanation offered on behalf of the petitioner point wise. In absence of any finding recorded by respondent No.4, as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable and unsatisfactory, the impugned order Annexure P-1, in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable when it is having civil consequence. Opportunity of hearing means on the reply called for, and submitted, there should be proper application of mind by the authority. 7. For the forgoing discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.3 is set-aside. Respondent No.3 will be at liberty to pass fresh speaking order after considering the entire material available, including reply submitted on behalf of petitioner. 8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ` Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.02.26 20:26:02 +0530 4