1 CGHC010066722026 2026:CGHC:35744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 761 of 2026 1 - Golden Way Women Self Help Group Vidyadih - Tangar Through President Smt. Heera Bai W/o Than Singh Bhargav, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village- Vidyadih (Tangar), P.S. And Tahsil Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) 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) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - The Food Inspector Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Gram Panchayat- Pachpedi Through Secretary Of Village- Panchayat- Pachpedi/ Operator Of Govt. Faire Price Shop- Village Panchayat- Pachpedi, Tahsil Pachpedi Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri AN Pandey, Advocte. For Respondent(s) : Shri Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a Fair Price Shop at village Vidyadih (Tangar), Gram Panchayat -Vidyadih (Tangar) Tahsil : Pachpedi District - Bilaspur (C.G.). Based on a report submitted by the Food Inspector-Respondent No.4, wherein certain deficiencies were found; respondent No.3/SDO (Revenue) issued a show- AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.13 11:25:38 +0530 2 cause notice on 03.12.2025, calling for an explanation from the petitioner as to why proceeding should not be initiated against him for cancellation of his licence and for prosecution. She further contended that without granting an opportunity of hearing or allowing for a reply/explanation to be submitted by petitioner, the concerned SDO (Revenue) has passed an impugned order dated 06.02.2026 Annexure P/1 suspending the allotment of the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. She further contended that under Clause 16 of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short “Control Order, 2016), a provision of penalty is provided. Furthermore, time limit prescribed for conclusion of proceedings is 3 months for redressal of such cases; hence, no action suspending the shop ought to have been taken against the petitioner by the concerned SDO (Revenue). She submits that similar nature of prayer made by petitioners in WPC No. 683/2023, came to be disposed of vide order dated 5.5.2026 directing the concerned authority to conclude the proceedings within the stipulated time and till then, order of status quo has been passed, hence, similar direction may be issued in this petition as well. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents would not oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition. 4. Considering the provision under Clause 16(1) of the Control Order, 2016, which prescribe a time period of 3 months for concluding the proceedings, respondent No.3/SDO (Revenue) 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. 3 5. It is further directed that till the proceedings before the concerned SDO (Revenue) are concluded, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash