logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Ch HC 096 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case No : WPC No. 3136 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Parties : Jai Maa Durge Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh, Khanta Through its President Shanti, Marwahi (C.G.) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Raipur (C.G.) & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: A.S. Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.S. Choubey, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 25-06-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 CGHC 26069,
Judgment :-

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure-P/4) whereby the respondent No.5/Sub divisional Officer (Revenue), Pendra Road, District Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi (CG) has suspended the fair price shop which was allotted to the petitioner -Society.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.06.2026 passed by Respondent No. 5, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pendra Road, District Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi (CG), whereby the Fair Price Shop bearing I.D. No. 402010071 allotted to the petitioner society at Village Khanta has been suspended and attached to Respondent No. 6. The impugned order is a non-speaking order passed without supplying the relevant documents, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, and without considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice dated 18.05.2026. The impugned action is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Hence this petition.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 has been passed by Respondent No. 5 without following the due process of law. It is submitted that Respondent No. 5, by a non-speaking and arbitrary order, has suspended the operation of the Fair Price Shop allotted to the petitioner and attached the same to Respondent No. 6 without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, inasmuch as no proper enquiry was conducted after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice. It is contended that before taking any adverse action, the authorities were required to hold an enquiry and verify the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which has not been done in the present case.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that a show cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner and the reply submitted thereto was duly considered by the competent authority before passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law after due consideration of the material available on record. Therefore, the order impugned is well-reasoned and justified, warranting no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the order passed by Respondent No. 5 has been issued without objectively considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and does not satisfy the requirements of a speaking order. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P/4) reveals that although the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice, the authority has merely observed that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The order neither discloses the specific irregularities allegedly found during inspection nor discusses the explanation offered by the petitioner in respect thereof. No reasons have been assigned as to why the petitioner's reply was found unacceptable. In the absence of any such findings and reasons, the impugned order, which entails serious civil consequences for the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. It is well settled that affording an opportunity of hearing does not merely mean calling for a reply; rather, the competent authority is required to duly consider the explanation submitted and pass a reasoned order reflecting proper application of mind. The impugned order fails to meet these requirements and is therefore liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P/4) passed by Respondent No. 5 is hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted to the prescribed authority, i.e., the SDO, Pendra Road, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (CG), to pass an appropriate order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and strictly following Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the concerned SDO is directed to decide the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order after duly considering the entire material available on record, including the reply submitted by the petitioner, and after affording due opportunity of hearing.

8. With these observations and directions this petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal