1 CGHC010281072021 2026:CGHC:39191 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4344 of 2021 1 - Laxman Singh Sonkar S/o Itwari Ram Sonkar Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lekhan Ram Dewangan S/o Gopal Ram Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o 307, Shiv Chouk Achhota, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Satyanarayan Sukalu Ram Sonkar Aged About 40 Years R/o Vindhyawasini Ward, Ward No. 32, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sant Ram Sonkar S/o Late Shri Jethu Ram Sonkar Aged About 41 Years R/o 95, Risai Para, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 5 - Kailash Yadav S/o Bala Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 01, School Para, Hatkeshar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shiromani Rao S/o Late Shri Krishan Rao Ghorpade Aged About 44 Years R/o Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 7 - Kuldeep Rao S/o Shobha Rao Aged About 41 Years R/o Amatalab Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., 8 - Anusiya D/o Aatmaram Aged About 53 Years Ward No. 32, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Zila Krishi Upaj Mandi Board, Dhamtari, Through Its Secretary, Zila Krishi Upaj Mandi Krishi Upaj Mandi Road, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gajendra Sonkar Shop No. 08, R/o Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kashiram Sonkar Shop No. 09 And 10, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.09.09 15:03:40 +0530 2 6 - Prakash Pawar Shop No. 11, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Basant Rao Kridutt Shop No. 12, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Rohit Sonkar Shop No. 13, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Daulat Ram Jasuja Shop No. 14, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Satyavan Yadav Shop No. 15, Shyam Terari, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Umesh Sahu Shop No. 16, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Urmila Bai Sonkar Shop No. 17, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, Respondent Nos.4 to 12 R/o For Shap Wholesale Vegetable Mandi Complex, Shap Kam Godown, Agricultural Produce Mandi, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vibhor Goverdhan appears on behalf of Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocates. For State : Shri Amit Nayak, PL. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.4 to 12 : Shri Rishabh Gupta appears on behalf of Shri Anurag Singh, Advocates. S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- 10.1. That The records pertaining to the fresh auction and previous allotment proceedings in dispute may be called for kind perusal of this court. 10.2. That, the impugned notice dated 15.09.2021 and auction made in names of respondents no.4 to 12, may kindly be set aside and quashed also the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners to run their shops peacefully, by the Hon'ble Court. 10.3. That the respondents maybe directed that no third party interest by way of auction or dispossessing the petitioners from their shops may be created, by the Hon'ble Court. 10.4. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may 3 deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are vegetable vendors operating their shops in the premises of the Krishi Upaj MandiSamiti Dhamtari, since last more than 6 years. Earlier petitioners used to operate their business in Gumtis at Gole Bazaar, Dhamtari. Due to congestion in traffic and increase in population, all the vegetables vendors were shifted to Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari. Again due to traffic problem, the petitioners were uprooted from Itwari Bazaar. Due to change in place of business twice the vegetable business of the petitioners was materially hampered and therefore petitioners pressed their demand for allotment of permanent location to continue with vegetable vending in Dhamtari. Finally, petitioners along with 23 other persons were allotted shops to run their vegetable business in Navin Mandi premises, Shyamtarai, Dhamtari. The shops in the Mandi Premises was meant for shop cum godown and petitioners were allotted shop numbers 08 to 17, respectively. The instant petition has been filed against the issuance of the impugned notice for auction of the shops which are allotted to the petitioners without cancelling the earlier allotment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned auction notice dated 15.09.2021 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the said auction notice is without any basis and in violation of the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement and the allotment letter dated 21/11/1997, the petitioners had been validly allotted Shops. The petitioners have duly paid the entire consideration amount as well as the rent as required under the terms of 4 allotment. Learned counsel emphasizes that there is no documentary evidence on record to establish that any rent remains outstanding against the petitioners. Despite this, the respondent authorities have, in a wholly arbitrary and fanciful manner, issued the impugned auction notice alleging non- fulfillment of certain conditions. Learned counsel further contends that before issuing such a drastic order of auction, the respondents were under a legal obligation to issue a notice to the petitioner, call upon them to explain or substantiate the allegations, and conduct a proper inquiry into the matter. However, no such opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners. The impugned notice neither discloses the period for which the alleged rent is due nor provides any supporting documents, thereby rendering the action violative of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the lease period has not expired and the petitioners, having fulfilled all conditions of allotment, cannot be evicted in such an arbitrary manner. It is also argued that the impugned notice has been issued without proper authority and sanction. As per the governing framework, the Collector, being the competent authority and the one who originally sanctioned the allotment, is required to approve such action. Furthermore, no committee has been constituted or approval obtained for initiating proceedings against the petitioners. Thus, the impugned action, taken by an authority subordinate to the competent authority, is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notice is vague and ambiguous, as it fails to specify the duration of the alleged outstanding rent or the specific clauses of the allotment terms that have been violated. No prior notice, warning, or communication was ever issued to the petitioner 5 alleging breach of any condition. It is contended that since the allotment was made under a State instrumentality, the respondents are expected to act in a fair, transparent, and reasonable manner, which has clearly not been adhered to in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned auction notice infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it unjustly restricts their right to carry on their lawful business. 4. Learned counsel for appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 , on instructions, submits that impugned order has rightly been passed and requires no interference. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 submits that the respondents are auction purchasers and they have participated in the auction proceedings and since the bid of the respondents was the highest one thereafter, the respondents have deposited the huge amount. The auction proceedings have been concluded, the agreement is yet to be executed. The auction proceedings were initiated in accordance with law. The petitioners have not participated in the auction proceedings, though they were aware in respect of the auction notice issued by the authorities. No right has been created in favour of the petitioners and it was only a temporary order of allotment. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the controversy involved in the present writ petition. 7. Admittedly, the undisputed position emerging from the record is that the petitioners were allotted Shop Nos. 08 to 17 in the Navin Mandi premises, Shyamtarai, Dhamtari, pursuant to the allotment proceedings undertaken by 6 the respondent authorities. The petitioners claim to have been in possession of and carrying on their vegetable business from the said shops for several years. It is also the specific case of the petitioners that the entire consideration amount as well as the rent payable under the terms of allotment has been duly deposited by them. The respondents, while defending the impugned auction notice, have alleged non-compliance with the conditions of allotment and have contended that the allotment in favour of the petitioners was only temporary in nature. However, from the record, it is evident that prior to issuance of the impugned notice, no show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to them to explain the alleged default. 8. It is a settled principle of law that any administrative or quasi-judicial action having civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order is not an empty formality but a mandatory safeguard to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in decision- making. 9. In the present case, the impugned auction notice has the effect of depriving the petitioner of their possession and means of livelihood, and therefore, strict compliance with the principles of natural justice was incumbent upon the respondent authorities. In my view, the impugned auction notice (Annexure P/1) has been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the 7 impugned auction notice dated 15.09.2021 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that respondent authorities shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised. In the event such proceedings are initiated, the respondents shall ensure that due opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioners, and a reasoned order is passed strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash