Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3897 of 2025 1 - Parwati Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Mudpar Bade Through Its Salesman Of (Govt. Fair Price Shop Mudpar Bade I.D. No. 412003036) Chaitram Patel S/o Shri Nanki Patel, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mudpar Bade, House No. 28, Tah. Sarangarh District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan Atal Nagar, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Food Branch), Sarangarh District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Sarangarh District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - The Food Inspector Sarangarh District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Saraswati Mahila Swa- Sahayata Samuh Siliyari Id. No. 412003113 Through Its President Village Siliyari Tah. Sarangarh District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
when it prima facie established that there is a breach of gross violation of rules of natural justice. 8. It is the well settled proposition of law that if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act 5 judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. 9. It is also the trite law that the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is an issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consisted with the rules of natural justice. 10.Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, it is quite vivid that the order impugned dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) appears to be passed without giving an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside.
Arguments
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call 2 for the entire records of the petitioner’s case. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent no. 3 for non-compliance of the Rules 16(3) of C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to consider the reply of the petitioner and grant proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and passed afresh order in accordance with law. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent/SDO passed the impugned order without following the due process of law and without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for brevity, “the Order, 2016”) which provides that before cancellation of authority letter of fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Inspector of the 3 District or the Sub-Divisional Officer shall issue notice to the shopkeeper and after giving an opportunity of being heard shall decide within a period of one month from issuance of show cause notice. He would further submit that the petitioner is running the fair price shop which has been allotted in his favour in a proper manner and he has not committed any illegality at all. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that on the basis of the report of the Food Inspector, such an irregularities were found and thereafter proper enquiry was conducted and the cancellation order has been passed. Thus, the order impugned is well merited warranting no interference of this order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. 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 4 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.” 6. Reading of the said Rule would show that before cancellation of authority of fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or in part, the fair price shop keeper must be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard after the show cause notice is issued. 7. From perusal of the aforesaid fact, it is evident that there is a gross violation of rules of natural justice which also mandated by sub- clause 3 of clause 16 of the Order, 2016. Consequently, this Court can very well exercise the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Decision
11.In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima