1 2026:CGHC:8673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 726 of 2026 Jai Mahalaxmi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Borsi Ward No. 52, Borsi (Id No. 431001077), Nagar Nigam Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Through Its President Smt. Gauri Bai Nirmalkar, W/o Babulal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Pacharipara Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Food Controller, District Durg C.G. 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R), Rajim, District Durg C.G. 6 - Shrihariom Khadya Suraksha Poshan Avam Up. Sewa Sahakari Society, Maryadit, Id No. 431001079, Nayapara Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 5/ State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 18.02.2026 1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure-P/4), whereby, respondents No.4, having recorded that the petitioner committed irregularities while operating the government fair price shop of Ward No.52, Borsi BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.02.19 15:41:20 +0530 2 Dakshin, Nagar Nigam Durg, Distt. Durg, which the petitioner was operating under attachment, has cancelled the allotment of fair price shop. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority, the petitioner is operating the government fair price shop at Ward No.52, Borsi Dakshin, Nagar Nigam Durg, Distt. Durg. Based on some report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner regarding irregularities reported in operating the fair price shop. The petitioner submitted reply to show cause notice, however, the respondents authorities have not considered the reply to the show cause notice and by non-speaking order (Annexure P-4), in a very arbitrary manner, has cancelled the order of attachment in favour of the petitioner for operating and running the government fair price shop at Ward No.52, Borsi Dakshin, Nagar Nigam Durg, Distt. Durg. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the order passed by respondent No.4 is not a speaking order and is passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, therefore, it be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the observation made by this Court he has sought instructions from the respondents authorities and according to the instructions, he is arguing the matter finally. He submits that the order has been passed by respondent No.4 after due compliance of the principles of natural justice. Inspection of fair price shop has been done. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation on the irregularities found by the inspecting authority and only thereafter, the order Annexure P-4 is passed. Therefore, it does not call for any interference. 4. When specific query was put to learned State counsel as to the point wise consideration on the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, he fairly submits that it is missing. He however pointed out that authorities have considered the reply submitted by representative of the petitioner. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Short point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that order passed by respondent No.4 is without considering the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner in appropriate manner and not passing speaking order. Perusal of order Annexure P-4 would show that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and representative of the petitioner has also submitted reply to the show cause notice. Respondent No.4 has only observed that allegation levelled against the operators of the shop is being confirmed through the show-cause notice. There is no discussion as to what irregularities were found by inspecting authority, and explanation offered on behalf of the petitioner point wise. In absence of any finding recorded by respondent No.4, as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable and unsatisfactory, the impugned order Annexure P-4, in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable when it is having civil consequence. Opportunity of hearing means on the reply called for, and submitted, there should be proper application of mind by the authority. 7. For the forgoing discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No.4 is set-aside. Respondent No.4 will be at liberty to pass fresh speaking order after considering the entire material available, including reply submitted on behalf of petitioner. 8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini