Remanded

Juhi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Mar 2024WPC/686/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside an order cancelling a petitioner fair price shop allotment for violation of natural justice due to lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court remitted the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

the order dated 14.01.2019 cancelled in the allotment of fair price shop was set aside and remitted for fresh disposal after affording due opportunity of hearing including cross-examination.

Juhi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 686 of 2019

¶5

Juhi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Ranka, Village - Ranka, Tahsil Berla District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., Through The Secretary, Rajkumari Manikpuri D/o Agarman Das Aged About 46 Years, R/o Jhalmala, Post - Ranka, Tahsil Berla District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food Civil Supplies Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Collector (Food Department) Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisarh.

¶10

The Sub - Divisional Officer (Food Department) Berla, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadange, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

14.03.2024

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following

¶17

prayers:

¶18

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of case from the respondent authorities.

¶19

10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 14.01.2019 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to run the fair price shop of Village Ranka, in accordance with law.

¶20

10.3. That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶21

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was running a Fair

¶22

¶23

Price Shop at Village Ranka, Gram Panchayat Ranka, Block-Berla, DistrictBemetara which was allotted in the year 2005. Vide order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Berla, the allotment of the said Fair Price Shop was suspended on the allegation that there were some irregularities as well as violation of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short “Order, 2016). Aggrieved by the above-said order, a WPC No. 1365/2018 was filed before this Court and vide order dated 05.12.2018, this Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Berla, District-Bemetara to decide the matter within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, on 29.12.2018, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and other witnesses as well as to the complainants. In the month of January 2019, the petitioner moved applications to cross-examine the witnesses including one Sarfaraj Ahamad and another application seeking adjournment on medical grounds. On 14.01.2019, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla rejected both applications on the ground that no medical certificate etc. was filed along with the application seeking adjournment and on the same day, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to crossexamine the witnesses, proceeded with the matter and passed the order impugned whereby the allotment of fair price shop was cancelled.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while deciding the matter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla afforded no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would also submit that the application moved by the petitioner for cross-examination of the witnesses as well as seeking adjournment on medical grounds were also rejected; therefore, the order passed by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Berla is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

¶25

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and witnesses were also examined in support of the case of the State. He would also submit that the

¶26

¶27

petitioner failed to cross-examine the witnesses and therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte and the final order was passed against it thereby cancelling the allotment of the fair price shop. He would further submit that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to prefer an appeal according to the provisions of clause 18 of the Order, 2016 therefore; the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

6. As far as the alternative remedy is concerned, this petition was filed in the year 2019 and interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner on 26.02.2019 and after a lapse of 5 years, the plea of alternative remedy should not be considered and therefore, the argument advance by the learned Counsel for the State in this regard cannot be accepted.

¶30

7. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that a proceeding was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has been running a fair-price shop since 2005. In the year 2018, it was placed under suspension. Aggrieved by the suspension of the allotment of fair price shop, WPC No. 1365/2018 was filed before this Court and thereafter, this Court vide order dated 05.12.2018 granted six weeks to the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Berla to decide the matter. In compliance with the said order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner; consequently, the petitioner moved two applications in the month of January 2019, one seeking adjournment and another to cross-examine the witnesses including one witness namely, Surfaraj Ahmad. The respondent No. 3 have rejected both applications without assigning any sufficient reason.

¶31

8. It also appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla examined the witnesses but the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses was not afforded to the petitioner therefore, the order is violative of the principles of natural justice as well as fair play and such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,

¶32

¶33

consequently, the order dated 14.01.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Berla is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to decide the same afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner including cross-examination of the witnesses.

¶34

9. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶35

10. The interim order passed in favour of the petitioner stands vacated.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

amita

Juhi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juhi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Shikha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Tupatkar Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Radhelal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nirmala Toppo (Dead) Through Lrs., Vs State of Chhattisgarh