1 CGHC010210952026 2026:CGHC:28380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3546 of 2026 1 - Bihari Lal Patwar S/o Late Babli Ram Aged About 69 Years R/o- Mouharpara Tahsil Manendragarh District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Ramnath Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o- Ward No. 08. Infront Of Sarovar Marg Akash Apartment Manendragarh Distt. Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Commissioner Surguja Division (Ambikapur) District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Collector District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) 5 - S.D.O. (R) Manendragarh District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, in Appeal Case No. 202507960100085/B-121/2024-25, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Collector, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (Annexure P/2) as well as the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, cancelling the allotment of Fair Price Shop ID No. 531002011, have been affirmed. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that a Government Fair Price Shop bearing ID No. 531002011 was allotted in favour of Mahila Prathmik Shakari Uppbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Mouharpara, Manendragarh, which was being operated by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the directions issued by the competent authorities. It is the case of the petitioner 3 that the Fair Price Shop was being operated smoothly and no complaint was ever made by any beneficiary regarding the functioning of the said shop. However, respondent No. 1 submitted a complaint alleging non-supply of food grains/ration. On the basis of the said complaint, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, directed an enquiry through the Food Inspector. According to the petitioner, the Food Inspector conducted the enquiry in an arbitrary manner without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and submitted a report dated 24.03.2021, recommending cancellation of the Fair Price Shop allotment. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 27.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted his reply dated 03.04.2021, denying the allegations and stating that there was no irregularity in distribution of ration. However, after considering the enquiry report, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, vide order dated 15.07.2021, cancelled the allotment of the Fair Price Shop and attached the same with another Fair Price Shop. The appeal preferred before the Collector, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2026. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authorities below have committed an error in cancelling the allotment of the Fair Price Shop. It is contended that there was no irregularity whatsoever in the distribution of ration/food grains and the allegation levelled against the petitioner was based only upon the complaint made by a single individual. Learned counsel further submits that the ration was duly supplied to the complainant's mother, however, due to technical issues relating to internet connectivity, the same could not be updated digitally in the record. It is submitted that the Food Inspector conducted the enquiry in a hurried and arbitrary manner on a single day i.e. 24.03.2021, without granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the enquiry report was prepared behind the back of the petitioner and reflects a predetermined approach against him. Learned counsel submits that prior to the complaint in question, no beneficiary or public representative had ever raised any grievance against the functioning of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop. Learned counsel lastly submits that the orders passed by the authorities below are contrary to the principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel, while opposing the writ petition, submits that the competent authorities, after considering the complaint received against the petitioner, conducted due enquiry and thereafter passed the order cancelling the allotment of the Fair Price Shop. It is submitted that the orders passed by the Sub- 5 Divisional Officer (Revenue), Collector and Commissioner are based upon appreciation of the material available on record and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner warranting interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the allotment of the Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, after conducting enquiry into the complaint made against the petitioner. The said order was subjected to challenge before the Collector and thereafter before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, and both the authorities have affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). 7. Thus, there are concurrent findings recorded by three competent authorities with regard to the irregularities committed in the functioning of the Fair Price Shop and the consequential cancellation of allotment. The said authorities have considered the material available on record and have passed orders in accordance with law. 6 8. The contention of the petitioner that the orders passed by the authorities below are not in accordance with law cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly when the competent authorities have concurrently examined the matter and recorded findings against the petitioner after considering the relevant material. 9. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own opinion in place of the findings recorded by the statutory authorities, unless such findings are shown to be perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the provisions of law. 10.In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such illegality, perversity or violation of statutory provisions warranting interference with the orders passed by the authorities below. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 15.07.2021, 20.04.2022 and 23.03.2026 passed by the competent authorities. 11.Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 12.No order as to costs. sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge vishakha