Smt. Chanda Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:15984-DB

MANPREET KAUR

NAFR

Digitally signed byMANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.09 11:20:07 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WA No. 403 of 2023

¶8

1 - Smt. Chanda Kashyap W/o Shri Abhishek Kashyap, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Konargarh, P.S. Mulmula, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Rajesh Suryavanshi S/o Lt. Shri Sukham Suryavanshi Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Konargarh, P.S. Mulmula, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Dinesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Sher Singh Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Pamgarh, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.)

¶11

... Appellant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

2 - Commissioner Directorate Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

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

¶16

4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶17

5 - Tahsildar Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶18

6 - Food Inspector Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

2

¶21

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Dy. A.G.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

¶23

Judgment on Board

¶24

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶25

08.04.2026

¶26

Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Parsun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents / State.

¶27

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3687/2023 (Smt. Chanda Kashyap and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) , whereby, the writ petition filed by appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶28

The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that a complaint was lodged by appellant No.01 (Sarpanch) and appellant No.03 (Secretary) of Gram Panchayat, Konargarh against Jai Maa Chandi Dai Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh, Dighora, which was operating the Fair Price Shop at Konargarh, alleging that the said Samuh abruptly abandoned the shop and handed over its keys to the Panchayat, and upon inspection, a substantial shortage of essential commodities was discovered vis-a-vis the stock supplied

¶29

3

¶30

by the Government. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Food Inspector and a report dated 10.10.2022 was submitted before the S.D.O., Pamgarh, on the basis of which show-cause notices were issued to several persons including the present appellants, however, the said enquiry report was not furnished along with the notices, thereby depriving them of an effective opportunity to respond. Thereafter, a second preliminary enquiry was conducted and its report dated 21.06.2023 was submitted before the S.D.O., Pamgarh, who, on the very same day, mechanically and solely relying upon the said enquiry reports, passed an order of recovery against the appellants and others, without assigning any reasons, without supplying the material relied upon, without affording any opportunity of crossexamination or leading defence evidence, and thus issued a nonspeaking order in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to settled principles of law and is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the recovery order passed by the competent authority suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Mere issuance of a show-cause notice does not satisfy the requirement of a fair hearing; it also necessitates supply of all relied-upon materials, including preliminary enquiry reports, and the opportunity to effectively rebut or cross-examine such material. In the present

¶32

4

¶33

case, the Appellants were never supplied with copies of the two preliminary enquiry reports, and the second report was submitted to the S.D.O. on 21.06.2023, the very same day the recovery order was issued. This procedure is clearly arbitrary and vitiates the principles of natural justice, as underscored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 727 . Furthermore, the learned Single Judge ignored the fact that the recovery order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The S.D.O. merely referenced the preliminary enquiry reports without assigning independent reasons or applying his own mind, in violation of the legal mandate for adjudicatory authorities to pass reasoned orders, as held in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. It is further submitted that the impugned action also violates the rule against dictation, a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The S.D.O. acted mechanically on the basis of the enquiry reports without exercising independent judgment, which the Supreme Court has held constitutes a breach of natural justice and undermines public confidence, as held in Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta & Another reported in AIR 1958 SC 667 . Additionally, the learned Single Judge misinterpreted Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which permits recovery only where commodities are supplied to ineligible persons. In the present case, there is no allegation or

¶34

5

¶35

finding of supply to ineligible persons. The matter relates solely to an alleged shortage in the fair price shop. The learned Single Judge’s acceptance of recovery under Rule 16 is therefore wholly without jurisdiction. In view of the above, the impugned order is legally unsustainable, having ignored binding precedents and essential facts, and deserves to be quashed, with the appeal of the appellants allowed in its entirety.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondents/State filed its reply submitting that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3687/2023, whereby the writ petition has rightly been dismissed after due consideration of facts and law, and that the instant appeal is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and substance, and is therefore liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that the appellants, namely the Sarpanch, Secretary and Salesman of the fair price shop at Gram Panchayat Konargarh, have attempted to assail the recovery proceedings on untenable grounds of alleged violation of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, whereas the record would clearly demonstrate that upon receipt of complaint regarding irregularities and shortage of food grains, the competent authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer conducted due enquiry, and after prima facie satisfaction, issued show-cause notice to the

¶37

6

¶38

appellants, which was duly served upon them. The appellants not only received the notice but also appeared before the authority through counsel and participated in the proceedings, and therefore, the plea of violation of natural justice is wholly baseless and contrary to record. It is further submitted that the contention of the appellants that the liability, if any, lies upon the previous selfhelp group is a matter of factual determination, which has been duly considered by the competent authority on the basis of inspection report and material available on record, and cannot be re-agitated in appellate jurisdiction in absence of perversity.

¶39

It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the entire factual matrix and has recorded a categorical finding that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The learned Court has taken note of the proceedings (Annexure P-1) which clearly indicate violations of provisions under Sections 11(5), 11(6), 13 and 15 of the Control Order, 2016, and that the appellants had full knowledge of the proceedings and had participated therein. It is further submitted that the recovery order dated 21.06.2023 has been passed after due calculation of shortage of food grains as determined by the Food Inspector and upon conclusion of the proceedings. The learned Single Judge has also rightly rejected the contention regarding absence of power of recovery by referring to Subsection (7) of Section 16 of the Control Order, 2016, which

¶40

7

¶41

specifically empowers the competent authority to recover the cost of commodities from the persons found responsible for such irregularities at market rate. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on proper appreciation of law and facts, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, and the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellants, in rejoinder, submits that the stand taken by the respondents/State is wholly misconceived and fails to address the fundamental illegality vitiating the entire proceedings. It is specifically contended that the order of imposition of penalty dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P-1) has been passed solely on the basis of the report and calculation sheet dated 21.06.2023 prepared by the Food Inspector, which was never supplied to the appellants at any stage. Significantly, the said report was prepared and the impugned order was passed on the very same day, thereby rendering the entire process arbitrary, pre-determined and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The reply filed by the State is conspicuously silent on this crucial aspect, which amounts to an implied admission. It is further submitted that apart from the said report, there were other material documents including the report dated 10.10.2022 of the Food Inspector and the report received from the Manager, C.G. Civil Supplies Corporation, Janjgir, as reflected in the order-sheet dated 14.03.2023, none of which were ever furnished to the appellants, despite specific pleadings to this effect in the writ

¶43

8

¶44

petition. Since the impugned order entails civil consequences, non-supply of such vital documents strikes at the root of fairness in decision-making and renders the entire proceedings unsustainable in law.

¶45

It is further submitted that the order dated 21.06.2023 is a nonspeaking, cryptic and unreasoned order, passed without any independent application of mind by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who has merely relied upon the enquiry report without recording any reasons or arriving at an independent satisfaction, thereby vitiating the order on the face of record. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider this aspect as specifically pleaded by the appellants and has erroneously upheld the order. It is also contended that the provisions of Clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 have not been complied with in their true spirit, as mere issuance of show-cause notice without supplying the material documents on the basis of which adverse action is proposed reduces the entire exercise to an empty formality. The obligation to ensure a fair hearing lies upon the authority, and it cannot be shifted upon the appellants to demand documents. Furthermore, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in a connected matter arising out of the same order dated 21.06.2023, being WPC No. 3547/2023 filed by similarly situated persons, an interim order has already been granted by the learned Single Judge on 09.08.2023, which also supports the appellants’ case. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the

¶46

9

¶47

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from non-consideration of material facts and settled principles of law and is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶48

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶49

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is evident that the order of recovery dated 21.06.2023 has been passed by the SubDivisional Officer on the basis of enquiry reports and material which were admittedly not supplied to the present appellants, thereby depriving them of an effective opportunity to defend their case. The mere issuance of show-cause notice, in absence of supply of the documents relied upon, does not satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice. Further, the recovery order appears to have been passed on the very same day on which the report dated 21.06.2023 was prepared, indicating lack of adequate opportunity and proper application of mind. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge affirming the said action are unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶50

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be and

¶51

10

¶52

is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the SubDivisional Officer (SDM) concerned, who shall consider the reply already filed by the present appellants to the show-cause notice, afford them a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

It is made clear that this order shall operate only in respect of the present appellants. Till such time, the operation of the recovery order dated 21.06.2023 shall remain in abeyance for a period of six (06) weeks.

¶54

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of .

¶55

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶56

Manpreet

Smt. Chanda Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chanda Kashyap 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudev Vs Darasram

Vishnukant Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhjeet Lal @ Vikku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Singh Thakur Vs Ghasiram

Munna Ram Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aakash Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh