1 2026:CGHC:20903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3181 of 2022 Mahamaya Woman Self Help Group Kotrahi Through President Smt. Kaushilya Kushwaha W/o Manmohan Kushwaha Aged About 33 Years President Of Mahamaya Women Self Help Group - Kotrahi R/o Village Kotrahi Tahsil Wadrafnagar District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhatthisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector (Food Department) Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - The, Sub - Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Wadrafnagar District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Food Inspector Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5 - Govt. Faire Price Shop Pendari, Tahsil Wadrafnagar District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. AN Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.05.06 18:27:42 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a Fair Price Shop at Village Kotrahi, Block Wadrafnagar. Based on a report submitted by the Food Inspector-Respondent No.4, wherein certain deficiencies were found, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (R) issued a show-cause notice on 5.5.2022, calling for an explanation from the petitioner as to why proceeding should not be initiated against him for cancellation of her licence and for prosecution. He contended that without granting an opportunity of hearing or allowing for a reply/explanation to be submitted by petitioner, the concerned SDO (R) passed the order dated 30.6.2022 (Annexure P/1) suspending the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. He further submits that under Clause 16 of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short “Control Order, 2016), a provision of penalty is provided. Furthermore, the time limit prescribed for the conclusion of proceedings is 3 months for the redressal of such cases; hence, no action suspending the shop ought to have been taken against the petitioner by Respondent 3/SDO (R). He submits that similar nature of prayer made by petitioners therein in WPC No. 1942/2022, came to be disposed of directing the concerned SDO (R) to conclude the proceedings 3 within the stipulated time and till then the order of status quo has been passed, hence, similar direction may be issued in this petition as well. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would not oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considering the provision under Clause 16(1) of the Control Order, 2016, which prescribe a time period of 3 months for concluding proceedings, Respondent No. 3/ Sub-Divisional Officer (R) is directed to conclude the proceedings in terms of Clause 16(1) within a further period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that till the proceedings before the Respondent No.3/SDO (R) are concluded, status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay