1 CGHC010183662020 2026:CGHC:34242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1883 of 2020 Santoshi Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh, Jut Mil Raigarh Through President Smt. Anju Jain, W/o. Shri Satish Jain, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Jut Mil Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Fertilizer Industrial Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Board, Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Joint Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Co-Operative Board, HIG -1, D53, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind High Tech Bus Stand, Tifra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity, New Board Premises Patelpali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.08.06 11:38:58 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2020 issued by the respondent No.4, by which the canteen allotted to the petitioner as per agreement of right to run canteen has been revoked. 2. Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. 3. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order. 4. Ms. Natasha Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4, would submit that as per clause 4 of the agreement, the rent of more than three months was not paid and number of irregularities have been found, therefore, it has been revoked as per the proposal No.1 dated 30.07.2020. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record minutely. 6. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 31.07.2020 would show that the petitioner failed to pay the rent for more than three months and despite an opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioner, he failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement; therefore, his agreement to run the canteen is revoked as per clause 4 of the agreement. In that view of the matter, the revocation of right to run canteen as per proposal No.1 dated 30.07.2020 is in accordance with law. As such, I do not find any merit in this petition, it deserves to be and accordingly is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to handover the canteen to the respondents No.2 to 4, if not already handed order. However, the security amount, if any, after deducting the rent shall be refunded to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge