Radheshyam Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:46813

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 5327 of 2024

¶6

1 - Radheshyam Sahu S/o Shri Dukalha Ram Sahu, Aged About 46 Years Office Bearer Of Maa Bhadrakali Bhadya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Pandarbhattha, BlockBemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Ganeshwar Sahu S/o Shri Bhuvan Sahu, Aged About 43 Years (Vice President), Office Bearer Of Maa Bhadrakali Bhadya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Pandarbhattha, BlockBemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Mithlesh Sahu S/o Shri Bhuvan Sahu, Aged About 40 Years (Secretary), Office Bearer Of Maa Bhadrakali Bhadya Suraksha Poshan And Upbhokta Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Pandarbhattha, BlockBemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S.-Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

2 - The Collector (Food Department), Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶13

2

¶14

3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bemetara, District- Bemetare (C.G.)

¶15

4 - Food Inspector, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶16

5 - President, Mahamaya Mahila Dholiya, Block -Bemetara, DistrictBemetara (C.G.)

¶17

6 - President, Laxmi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Pandarbhattha, Registration No. 33003995520 Block-Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy.GA

¶20

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

12/09/2025

¶23

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶24

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners challenging the legality of the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 suspending the operation of the Fair Price Shop allotted to the petitioner-society and the subsequent appellate order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal.

¶25

Facts of the case in nutshell is that the petitioners are the President, Vice President and Secretary, respecitvely of “Maa

¶26

3

¶27

Bhadrakali Khadya Suraksha Poshan Evam Upbhokta Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit , Pandarbhattha, Block Bemetra, district Bemetara CG.” The petitiones have been holding the said post for the last three years and are jointly responsible for running the Government Fair Priue Shop situated at village Panchayat Pandarbhattha, Shop ID NO. 432009080. During their tenure the petitioners have been discharging their dutis with utmost dedication, sincerely and honesty without any complaint of malpractice or irregularity.

¶28

On 14.03.2023, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice to the petitioners alleging certain irregularities and directed them to submit their written reply/clarification within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioners, immediately upon receipt, submitted their detailed written reply denying the allegations and clarifying their position with supporting documents. However, despite their detailed written reply, no opportunity of hearing or personal explanation was granted to the petitioners and without due compliance of the principles of natural justice, the suspension order dated 04.04.2023 came to be passed against the petitioners suspending the operation of the aforesaid Fair Price Shop.

¶29

It has been alleged by the respondents that one Phool Bai, a ration card holder under the “Antyodaya Anna Yojana” died on 23.07.2023, but despite her death the grocery items continued to be received in her name for more than six months by one Keja Bsi who was shown as nominee of the deceased. On this allegation, it has been imputed that the petitioners, being the office bearers responsible for

¶30

4

¶31

operation of the Fair Price Shop, have permitted illegal distribution of food grains and thereby violated Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is further alleged that such act also attracts penal consequences under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the suspension order dated 04.04.2024, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal before the respondent No.2 - Collector, District Bemetara under Clause 18 of the Control Order 2016, along with an application for interim stay on 1104.2024. during pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners approached this Court (in WPC No. 4050/2024) seeking direction for expeditious disposal of the trial and vide order dated 09.04.2024, this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to hear and decide the appeal on the next date of hearing ie. 09.09.2024. In complaint with the directions of this Court, respondent No.2 considered the appeal and passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed sustaining the order of suspension.

¶33

Contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned orders have been passed without affording any proper and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as mandated under sub-clause (3) of Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is contended that although a show cause notice was issued the enquiry report forming the basis of the action was never supplied, thereby depriving the petitioners of the chance to defend themselves effectively.

¶34

5

¶35

It is further submitted that the order dated 19.09.2024 suffers from illegality and therefore the impugned orders be set aside and a fresh decision may be passed after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶36

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioners and submits that serious irregularities were found during the enquiry, particularly relating to distribution of food grains in the name of deceased beneficiary, which constitutes violation of the Control Order, 2016. It is contended that the suspension was justified in order to safeguard the interests of genuine beneficiaries under the Public Distribution System. Learned State counsel fairly submits that the mater may be remitted to the competent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the suspension of a Fair Price Shop under Clause 16 of the Control Order , 2016 amounts to a penalty. Sub clause (3) thereof specifically provides that before passing an order of suspension of cancellation, a show cause notice must be issued and sufficient opportunity of hearing must be granted to the concerned society/shopkeeper.

¶38

In the case in hand, prima facie , the enquiry report forming the basis of suspension order was not supplied to the petitioners thereby depriving them of a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. The appellate order dated 19.09.2024 also does not reflect proper

¶39

6

¶40

consideration of the petitioners’ defence. Thus, the orders impugned suffers from violation of natural justice.

¶41

In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to conclude the enquiry strictly in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as contemplated under SubClause (3) of Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all the issues are left open to be adjudicated by the competent authority. However, liberty is granted o the petitioners that in case any fresh cause of action arises in future, it shall be open for them to approach this court by filing petition afresh.

¶43

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶45

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2025.09.17 13:30:38 +0530

Radheshyam Sahu v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam Sahu v. the 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

Hamid Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Kawasi Lakhma Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Taturam Sahu Vs the Deputy Registar ( Firms and Society)

Ashok Bera Vs Union of India

Roshan Chandrakar Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Pushpa Minj Vs Union of India