1 CGHC010191732022 2026:CGHC:37550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2655 of 2022 Astha Women Self Help Group Bharari Through President Smt. Jyoti Mahra W/o Ballu Ram Mahra Aged About 24 Years, President Of Astha Women Self Help Group Bharari P.S. Kota Tahsil Sakari, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... 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) Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Food Inspector Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Hulasi Bai W/o Kirtan Lal Verma Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Bharari Block Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Milapa Bai W/o Lekhram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bharari Block Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Santoshi Devi Baghel W/o Ravishankar Baghel Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bharari Block Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Rukhmani Bhaskar W/o Prabhudayal Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Bharari Block Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 2 For the Petitioner :None. For the State : : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “10. Reliefs Sought: 10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of impugned enquiry report dated 30.5.2022 (Annexure P-1) prepared by the respondent no.4 and further be please to set aside the entire further proceeding on the basis of enquiry report dated 30.05.2022. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to hold the departmental enquiry against the respondent no.4 and further be please to hold an enquiry against the respondent no.5 to 8 for mad false complain against the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that the present petition has been filed challenging the enquiry report dated 30.05.2022 prepared by respondent No. 4, allegedly without taking into consideration the distribution register and online distribution register produced by the petitioner at the time of inspection of his fair price shop. Respondent No.4 prepared the enquiry report solely on the basis of the statements of the 3 complainants without properly considering the relevant documentary evidence and, thereafter, forwarded the said enquiry report to respondent No.3 for cancellation of the registration of petitioners’ fair price shop. According to the petitioner, vide order dated 19.12.2018, the fair price shop situated at Village Bharari was allotted to the petitioner-society after following due process of law. Since the date of allotment, the petitioner has been regularly operating the said fair price shop at Village Bharari in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment order. No complaint had previously been made against the petitioner in relation to the functioning of the fair price shop. However, on 23.05.2022, respondent Nos. 5 to 8 submitted a complaint before the Food Controller, Bilaspur, alleging that the petitioners had failed to distribute the bonus rice for the month of April, 2022. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No. 4 inspected the fair price shop of the petitioners, recorded the statements of the complainants and prepared a Panchnama. During the course of inspection, the complainants allegedly stated that the bonus rice for the month of April, 2022 had not been distributed to them by the petitioners. The petitioners, however, contend that the complainants had already received the bonus rice for the said month and had duly affixed their signatures in the distribution register as well as in the online distribution register. However, respondent No.4 failed to consider the aforesaid documentary 4 evidence and despite the entries available in the distribution register and online records, proceeded to hold that irregularities had been committed by the petitioner in the operation of the fair price shop and accordingly prepared the impugned enquiry report. Hence, entire proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and documents available on record. Hence, the present petition. 3. When the case is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the present writ petition is premature and is not maintainable at this stage, as the impugned enquiry report dated 30.05.2022 is merely a fact-finding report and no final or adverse order has been passed against the petitioner on the basis thereof. The preparation of an enquiry report, by itself, does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner or affect any vested right of the petitioner in respect of his fair price shop. The petitioner would has an opportunity to place his defence before the concerned competent authority at the appropriate stage, therefore, present petition, being premature and devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned State Counsel and perused the writ petition including impugned enquiry report and material/documents available on record. 6. Upon perusal of the writ petition and the material available on record, it appears that no adverse or final order has been passed 5 against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned enquiry report dated 30.05.2022. Nevertheless, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the enquiry report itself. In the absence of any consequential or final order affecting the rights of the petitioner, no occasion arises for this Court to interfere with the enquiry report in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Moreover, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, which indicates that the petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting the present petition. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and no ground is made out warranting interference. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.