WPC/3768/2022 of ASHALATA MAHILA SWA SAHAYATA SAMUH GRAM PANCHAYAT PIPARSATTI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 23 September 2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 25.7.2022 passed by the Collector, Janjgir-Champa (CG) (Respondent No.2).

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :

10.1. To call for the entire records of the present case.

10.2. To issue the writ of MANDAMUS and set aside the impugned order dt. 25.07.2022 and to hold that the order of cancellation of allocation of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, is bad in law, in the interest of justice.

10.3. To hold that the order dt. 24.08.2021 passed by the respondent no. 03 is bad in law and to set aside the same.

10.4. To pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's group operated the Fair Price Shop at Village Piparsatti (Akaltara, Janjgir-Champa) under the C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 for several years. After some complaints made by the local Sarpanch and MLA alleging irregularities in commodity distribution and distribution in the names of deceased persons, action was initiated against the petitioner. He submits that despite the petitioner submitting a reply to the show-cause notice, the concerned SDO(R) arbitrarily suspended and subsequently cancelled the shop allotment vide order dated 24.08.2021. Ultimately, the Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 25.07.2022. Further, the authorities have issued a newspaper advertisement dated 18.06.2022 to re-allot the subject shop. Hence, this Petition.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submit that there were certain irregularities found in the functioning of the fair price shop by the petitioner, as such, the impugned show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied and SDO (Revenue) has conducted enquiry as per Rule 16 of the Control Order, 2016 and thereafter, the impugned suspension order of fair price shop has been issued.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

6. The State of Chhattisgarh has framed the Order, 2016 in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Chhattisgarh Food and Nutritional Security Act, 2012 named as Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. Order 16 speaks about penalty. The relevant part is read as under : "16. Penalty- (1) If shopkeeper contravenes any provision of agreement, then he shall be liable for suspension or cancellation by the officer authorized for allotment of Fair Price shop. The time limit for redressal of such cases shall not exceed three months. (2) During inspection of the shop, if any irregularity is 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 or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Officer of district or Sub- Divisional Officer of sub- division shall issue show cause notice to Fair Price Shopkeeper and after giving an appropriate opportunity of being heard shall decide within a period of a month from issuance of show cause notice."

7. Reading of the aforesaid rule would show that before cancellation of the authority letter of the fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or in part of security, the fair price shopkeeper shall be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard after issuance of show cause notice.

8. In the matter of Smt. Mamta Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh & others, WP(C) No.1903 of 2020, decided on 21.01.2021, this Court has categorically held that after issuance of a show-cause notice, the fair price shopkeeper must be given an opportunity of being heard, therefore, the procedure adopted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) was erroneous and contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 16(3) of the Order 2016.

9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in the instant case, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner duly submitted a reply. However, no proper inquiry or proceedings took place and the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine the witnesses before the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop allocation, which is in clear contravention of Rule 16 (3) of the Order 2016.

10. Taking into consideration the factual situation, the impugned order dated 25.7.2022 (Annexure P/1) is quashed/set aside and the petitioner is directed to approach the SDO concerned in this regard who shall consider the matter afresh in light of Control Order 2016 on its own merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11. The petitioner will be at liberty to lead evidence in the proceedings before the SDO.

12. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay