Purva Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:35925

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2003 of 2025

¶6

1 - Purva Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Champa, Through President, Smt. Ganga Bai Khandekar, W/o Rameshwar Khandekar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ghoghra Nala, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Ritesh Kumar Khandekar S/o Chhannu Lal Khandekar Aged About

¶8

31 Years R/o Ghoghra Nala, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Corporation, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Director, Food And Civil Supplies Corporation, Block-02, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Food Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Gupta, GA

¶18

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

24/07/2025

¶21

Challenge in the present petition is to the impugned notice dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 5.

¶22

Facts of the case are that the petitioners were allotted the fair price shop at village Champa bearing ID No. 541003006 in the year 2017. On the basis of a complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners with respect to the deficiency of some food grains and without providing any opportunity of hearing, the operation of the shop was suspended and it was allotted to another self group namely Jai Thakurain Dai Khadya Suraksha Poshan Evam Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit , Champa bearing shop ID No. 541003006 vide order dated 3.03.2025. Suddenly thereafter without conducting any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner which is in the form of final order. Hence the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶23

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that after conducting due enquiry and physical verification of the stocks and records, a report was submitted on 16^th May 2024 before the competent authority ie. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. As per the provisions of Chhattigarh Public Distribution Control Order, 2016 the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa issued a show cause notice on 24.05.2024 and reminder notices dated 20.08.2024-28.09.2024, 19.12.2024 has been served to the petitioner

¶24

3

¶25

and the same was duly replied by the petitioner in furtherance to the final notice dated 19.12.2024. Copy of the Inspection report, panchnama, physical verification report, notices and reply submitted by the petitioner are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. The respondent No.5/SDO (R) has only passed the order and nothing has been mentioned or discussed as to what irregularities were found.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. It appears that the order passed by the respondent No.5 is without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners in an objective manner and has not passed any speaking order. In absence of any finding recorded by the SDO (Revenue) as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable and unsatisfactory, the impugned notice (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: when it is having civil consequences. Nothing has been mentioned or 2025.07.26 14:19:40 +0530 discussed as to what irregularities were found by the inspecting authority and explanation offered on behalf of the petitioners’ point of view. Opportunity of hearing means on the reply called for and submitted, there should be proper application of mind by the authority.

¶27

In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.5 only to the extent of recovery amount of Rs. 9,37,233.32/-. Respondent No.5 would be at liberty to pass fresh speaking order after considering the material available including the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioners.

¶28

It is pertinent to mention that the enquiry is pending before the SDO (Revenue) Champa and therefore he may pass the order as per

¶29

4

¶30

the provisions of Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

Purva Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purva Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Motiram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Purva Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Champa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bisahulal Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maheshwar Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagdish Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh