1 CGHC010268012026 2026:CGHC:29585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3654 of 2026 1 - Vrindawati Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Sankra Through Its President Namely Smt. Kumudani Sahu Aged About 50 Years, W/o Minketan Sahu, R/o Village Sankra, P.S. And Tahsil Sariya, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 8319399262 2 - Secretary Namely Smt. Padminee Pradhan Aged About 35 Years, W/o Jagannath Pradhan, R/o Village Sankra, P.S. And Tehsil Sariya, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Mo.No.7898508655 ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Civil Supplies And Food, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Food Officer Food Department Baramkela, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Gram Panchayat Tora Through Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tora, P.S. And Tahsil Sariya, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.15 10:31:11 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the Government Fair Price Shop bearing ID No.412004019, allotted to and being operated by the petitioner Society at Village Sankra, has been suspended and attached with the Fair Price Shop of respondent No.5 during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed solely on the basis of an enquiry report without supplying a copy thereof to the petitioner, without completion of the enquiry and in disregard of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6448 of 2025, wherein it was held that suspension of a fair price shop amounts to imposition of penalty under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and, therefore, cannot be resorted to without following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 17.06.2026 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-P/1), is in the interest of justice. 3 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct to the respondent no. 3 to provide fair opportunity of the hearing, is in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.06.2026, whereby the Fair Price Shop being operated by the petitioner Society has been suspended and attached with another Fair Price Shop during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings. It is submitted that an earlier order of suspension had also been challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6448 of 2025, wherein this Court, vide order dated 17.12.2025, while interfering with the said order, categorically observed that suspension of a Fair Price Shop amounts to imposition of penalty under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and, therefore, such action could not have been taken without following the procedure prescribed therein. Consequently, liberty was granted to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law after issuing a show-cause notice and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the respondents issued a fresh show-cause notice, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply 4 specifically denying the allegations levelled against it. However, without properly considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner and without assigning any reason as to why the same was found unsatisfactory, the respondent No.3 has once again proceeded to pass the impugned order of suspension. It is contended that the impugned order suffers from complete non- application of mind and is merely founded upon the enquiry report prepared by the inspecting authority, a copy whereof was never supplied to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was never afforded an effective opportunity to defend itself. Neither was the petitioner permitted to cross-examine the persons whose statements have been relied upon by the authorities, nor was any opportunity granted to adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of its defence. According to the learned counsel, the entire action is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure contemplated under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that after the earlier order passed by this Court, the competent authority has initiated proceedings strictly in accordance with Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 by issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner and considering the explanation submitted by it. It is contended that the proceedings 5 are still pending before the competent authority and the impugned order of suspension is only an interim measure during the pendency of the enquiry. Learned State counsel would further submit that the contention raised by the petitioner regarding non- examination of witnesses or denial of opportunity to lead evidence is premature, inasmuch as the stage for recording evidence and affording such opportunity arises during the course of the enquiry proceedings. It is submitted that the competent authority is yet to conclude the enquiry after following the procedure prescribed under Clause 16 of the Control Order, 2016 and, therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner primarily relates to the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order of suspension. Prima facie, it appears that after the earlier order passed by this Court, the respondent authorities have issued a fresh show-cause notice and have also considered the reply submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned order. At the stage of issuance of a show-cause notice and consideration of the explanation, the competent authority is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding further in accordance with law. 6 7. So far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding non- examination of witnesses, denial of cross-examination and non- consideration of documentary evidence is concerned, the same pertains to the enquiry contemplated under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The said provision prescribes a complete procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings, during which the competent authority is required to afford adequate opportunity to the affected fair price shop to defend itself, permit production of oral and documentary evidence, consider the material placed on record and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The petitioner would, therefore, have ample opportunity to raise all factual and legal pleas before the competent authority during the enquiry itself. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has approached this Court at a stage when the statutory proceedings are still pending before the competent authority. Since an efficacious opportunity is yet to be afforded to the petitioner under the statutory scheme itself, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Sub-Divisional 7 Officer (Revenue), who is the competent authority, to conduct and conclude the enquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The competent authority shall afford the petitioner full and effective opportunity of hearing, permit the petitioner to produce oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its defence, consider all objections and submissions raised by the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 10. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all factual and legal contentions before the competent authority and to adduce such oral and documentary evidence as may be advised. The competent authority shall endeavour to conclude the enquiry expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh