1 CGHC010331622026 2026:CGHC:38481 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4400 of 2026 1 - Jai Ambey Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Sonpur Through The President Prabha Sahu, W/o Sandeep Kumar Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sonpur, Block Ramanujnagar,, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Jai Ambey Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Sonpur, Through The Secretary Poonam Sahu, W/o Rajiv Sahu, Aged About 30 Years,r/o Village Sonpur, Block Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Distribution System Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - The Food Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri SS Choubey, GA. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. Instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur C.G. whereby the application of petitioner for grant of stay has been dismissed and order 04.08.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur C.G., by which, the SDO has attached the AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.09.01 17:36:26 +0530 2 fair price shop Sonpur with Fair Price shop Bishunpur which was earlier being run by the petitioner since 2012, was not stayed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the SDO (Revenue) issued a public notice dated 02.05.2025 whereby the fair price shop situated at Village Sonpur, Janpat Panchayat Ramanujnagar, was proposed to be allotted to a new Self- Help Group in place of the petitioners. Prior thereto, a show-cause notice was issued by the Food Officer to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners had received an amount of Rs.50/- each from certain ration card holders towards verification of ration cards and Rs.20/- each towards plastic bags. It was further alleged that, instead of the President and Secretary, the fair price shop was being operated by their family members. The petitioners duly submitted their reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice and specifically contended that all the ration card holders, on the basis of whose alleged statements the Food Officer had prepared the report against the petitioners, had subsequently sworn affidavits categorically stating that there were no such complaints against the petitioners' Society and that the fair price shop at Village Sonpur was being properly and correctly operated by the petitioners. After receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioners, and without properly considering the affidavits filed by the petitioners as well as the oral statements made by the concerned ration card holders, the SDO (Revenue), vide order dated 16.06.2022, mechanically recorded that the reply submitted by the petitioners was not satisfactory. Consequently, the allotment of the Government Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled and the said fair price shop was attached to and directed to be operated through the Fair Price Shop at Pampapur. Being 3 aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the SDO (Revenue), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector under Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The said appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Surajpur, vide order dated 13.09.2023(Annexure P/6). In the meantime, during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the Collector, the SDO (Revenue) had also passed orders for allotment of the said fair price shop in favour of a third party. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No. 3236/2022 before this Court, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 26.07.2022 directing the Collector to decide the interim application as well as the appeal itself at the earliest, preferably before creation of any third-party right. On the strength of the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3236/2022, the petitioners continued to operate the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur and, even as on date, the petitioners have been continuously operating the said Fair Price Shop since the year 2012. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Collector, Surajpur, the petitioners preferred an appeal (Annexure P/8) under Section 18(2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, before the State Government, which appeal is still pending consideration. Despite the pendency of the aforesaid appeal preferred by the petitioners before the State Government, the SDO (Revenue) once again issued the impugned public notice dated 02.05.2025, whereby the Fair Price Shop situated at Village Sonpur, Janpat Panchayat Ramanujnagar, was proposed to be allotted to a new Self-Help Group in place of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice dated 4 02.05.2025 issued by the SDO (Revenue), the petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No. 2632/2025 before this Court, wherein this Court was pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 02.05.2025 vide order dated 29.05.2025. Subsequently, by efflux of time and owing to the change in jurisdiction under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the State Government came to be transferred for adjudication before the Commissioner, Surguja Division. The Commissioner, Surguja Division, without proper application of mind and without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners and, in particular, in the absence of the complete records of the case, has passed the impugned order dated 17.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) , whereby the petitioners' application for grant of stay has been dismissed, while the main appeal has been kept pending for further hearing. In the meantime, despite having complete knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the orders passed by this Court, the SDO, Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.), has, most illegally, arbitrarily and in utter disregard of the subsisting orders of this Court, attached the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur, which was being operated by the petitioners, with the Fair Price Shop situated at Bishnupur vide order dated 04.08.2026 (Annexure P/2). 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the appeal pending before the Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, application of petitioner for grant of stay has been summarily rejected without even calling the records and without considering the fact that petitioner was running the Fair Price Shop in question since 2012. 5 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure contemplated under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, particularly Clause 16 thereof, mandates a proper and fair enquiry before any adverse action such as cancellation of the authority letter of a Fair Price Shop or forfeiture of the security amount is taken against the Fair Price Shopkeeper. He submits that in the instant case, the procedure as envisaged under Control Order, 2016 has not been followed. 5. Learned State counsel submits that from the perusal of petition, it appears that the petitioner is still running the Fair Price Shop, however, since application of petitioner for grant of stay has been rejected by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, as such, petitoner is not entitled for any relief when even otherwise, the original appeal is still pending before the concerned Comissioner. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 7. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of Clause 16 of the Control Order, 2016, which deals with imposition of penalty. The relevant portion thereof reads as under:- 16. Penalty. - (1) If shopkeeper contravenes any provision of agreement, his shop shall be liable for suspension or cancellation by authorized officer for allotment of Fair Price shop. (2) During inspection of shop, if any irregularity found then without prejudice to any action the whole or part of amount deposited by shopkeeper as security, shall be forfeited in favour of the State. (3) Before cancellation of authority letter of Fair Price Shop 6 or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Officer of district, Sub-Divisional Officer of sub-division shall issue show cause notice and after giving him appropriate opportunity of hearing decision shall be made. This action shall be completed within a month from issuance of show cause notice. (4) The inspection of Fair Price Shop and other agencies engaged in supply and distribution of essential,commodities under public distribution system shall be done by the officers mentioned in the sub-rule (2) of rule 13 of this order. If irregularities found against Fair Price Shop run by cooperative societies, then inspecting officer communicate it to Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies, who will send his report within 15 days to officer designated for allotment of Fair Price Shop. If the said Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies does not submit his report within 15 days then it will be presumed that the consent of Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies is favourable and proposed action can be completed. (5) If any person, society or group contravenes any provisions of this Order, he shall be liable to punishment under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. In case of cooperative societies, Gram Panchayat or other institution the prosecution may be started on the approval of Collector but in such cases the action shall not be restricted to salesman of Fair Price Shop only it can be extended to President and executive officers of society and other institutions and Sarpanch, Secretary of Panchayat or Gram Panchayat. (6) If there is prima-facie evidence that any individual is operating a shop as a proxy/"benami" shop keeper or de- facto owner by using the self-help groups, primary credit 7 societies, forest protection committees, other credit societies or Gram Panchayat, she/he will be prosecuted under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as if she/he were running the shop.” 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the law particularly considering Sub-clause (3) of Clause 16, there is a clear indication that before cancellation of the authority letter of a fair price shop, an appropriate opportunity of being heard shall be provided. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raghunath Sharma vs. State of Haryana and Another {2025 SCC OnLine 1148} held the following in paragraph 9.3.4:- “9.3.4 The law, therefore, is no longer res integra. The exception to this position has been reorganized in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar {(2011) 14 SCC 770} in the following terms: "46. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 CrPC would not operate, In such an eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault.…" 8 The 'exceptions' of a) the violation of audi alteram partem; and b) abuse of process of law which would affect the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter and, in such cases the exercise of the inherent powers under the code has been approved by a Bench of three Judges in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey {(2021) 14 SCC 683} .These aren't the circumstances of the present case.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and Others v. Ambay Cements and Another, {(2005) 1 SCC 368} held the following in paragraph 26:- 26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non- compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein.” 11. The aforesaid principle was further reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Mahendra Singh {2022 SCC OnLine SC 909} in paragraph 15 & 16, which reads as under:- 15. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad {(1999) 8 SCC 9 266}, held as under: “17………………..It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with advantage : Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935-36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)], Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098], State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57].) An election petition under the rules could only have been presented in the open court up to 16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done…………….” 16. The said principle has been followed by this Court in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh {(2015) 13 SCC 722} wherein this Court held as under: “14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure………….” 12. In the matter of OPTO Circuits (India) Ltd. v. Axis Bank and Others, {(2021) 6 SCC 707 }, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 14 as under:- “14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the presentation of an election petition, as per the procedure prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what 10 would be a valid presentation of an election petition in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad [Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, (1999) 8 SCC 266] and in the course of consideration observed as hereunder : (SCC p. 273, para 17) “17. … It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.” Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in the instant case, though the authorised officer is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure laid down under the statute. As such the power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which it would fall foul of the requirement of complying with due process under law. We have found fault with the authorised officer and declared the action bad only insofar as not following the legal requirement before and after freezing the account. This shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merit of the allegation or any other aspect relating to the matter and the action initiated against the appellant and its Directors which is a matter to be taken note of in appropriate proceedings if at all any issue is raised by the aggrieved party.” 13. Though during the course of hearing, contention has not been raised by counsel for the petitioner with regard to due opportunity of hearing being provided to the petitioner, however, this Court cannot turn its back on the error apparent on the face of record. In the present case, although a show- cause notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner, the material placed on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner had specifically relied upon affidavits of the concerned ration card holders disputing the 11 allegations which formed the basis of the action against the petitioner. The petitioner also claims to have placed other material in support of its defence. 14. However, from the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), it appears that the petitioner's reply was rejected by recording, in a rather summary manner, that the same was not satisfactory. There is no apparent consideration of the specific defence raised by the petitioner which suggests that that the procedure as envisaged under the Control Order, 2016 has not been followed. 15.It is true that the present writ petition primarily challenges the subsequent order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for interim relief. However, this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, cannot ignore an apparent violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2016, particularly when the consequence of such action is cancellation of the Fair Price Shop which the petitioner claims to have been operating since 2012. 16. The Commissioner, while considering the application for interim relief, was required to consider the relevant records and the effect of the pending substantive appeal. The rejection of the application for stay, without the complete records being before the Commissioner, particularly when the petitioner had raised a specific grievance regarding non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Clause 16 of the Control Order, 2016, cannot be sustained. It goes without saying that the very intention and an object behind sub-clause (3) of Clause 16 of the Order, 2016, for providing an opportunity of hearing is that the aggrieved person should not be as if the proceedings 12 have been drawn without considering any of his submissions, explanation or justification that he has in respect of the specific allegation. 17. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that instead of permitting the matter to proceed further on the basis of the order dated 16.06.2022, the matter deserves to be remitted to the competent authority for conducting a fresh enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2016. 18. Accordingly, the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Surajpur District Surajpur, C.G., the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, Surajpur, as well as the subsequent proceedings before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, arising out of the said order, are hereby set aside/quashed. 19.The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur, District Surajpur, is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner in accordance with Clause 16 of the Control Order, 2016. The petitioner shall be furnished with the relevant material relied upon against it and shall be afforded adequate and effective opportunity to submit its explanation and produce supporting material, including the affidavits/statements relied upon by it. Thereafter, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. 20. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as mandated in Control Order, 2016. 13 21.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner, and the competent authority shall take an independent decision on the basis of the material available on record and in accordance with law. 22. Since it has been submitted by both sides that the petitioner is presently operating the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur, and keeping in view the direction for fresh enquiry, it is directed that till completion of the aforesaid enquiry and passing of a fresh order by the competent authority, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur in accordance with the applicable rules and conditions. 23.Consequently, the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, whereby the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur was attached with the Fair Price Shop at Bishnupur, shall remain inoperative till completion of the aforesaid enquiry and passing of the fresh order. 24. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash