Ujala Women Self Help Group- Unchdih Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CGHC010343052026

¶3

2026:CGHC:40639

¶4

RUCHIYADAV Digitally signedby RUCHIYADAV

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 4677 of 2026

¶8

1 - Ujala Women Self Help Group- Unchdih Through- The Secretary Smt. Sonamati Prajapati W/o Ramjeet Prajapati Aged About 39 Years Secretary of Ujala Women Self Help Group Unchdih R/o Village Unchdih Block - Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Food Department) Surguja (Ambikapur) Distt- Surguja (C.G.)

¶12

3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dhourpur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Food Inspector Lundra Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - President Of Durga Self Help Group Patradih Operator Of Govt. Faire Price Shop Jamdih R/o Village Jamdih Block- Lundra Distt- Surguja (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery)

¶15

2

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Government Advocate

¶17

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

¶18

17/09/2026

¶19

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the fair price shop of the petitioner has been allotted to Respondent No. 5 without issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing, and without following the procedure prescribed under Clauses 16(1) and 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2016.

¶20

The facts of the case, in brief, are that Ujala Women Self Help Group, Unchdih, is a registered Self Help Group under the Vihan Scheme. The petitioner is the Secretary of Ujala Women Self Help Group, Unchdih, resident of Village Unchdih, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.), and is duly authorized by the members of the Self Help Group to institute and pursue the instant petition before this Court. In accordance with the Government Scheme and upon fulfillment of all the prescribed terms and conditions, Respondent No. 3 allotted the Fair Price Shop situated at Village Unchdih to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said allotment, the petitioner was duly operating the said Fair Price Shop in accordance with the applicable rules and conditions. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging certain irregularities in the operation of the said Fair Price Shop. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations levelled against her and also produced the relevant

¶21

3

¶22

documents in support of her case. The petitioner specifically requested Respondent No. 3 to conduct physical verification of the Fair Price Shop. However, without conducting any enquiry or physical verification and without duly considering the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner, Respondent No. 3, vide order dated 09.07.2025, attached the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop to the shop of Respondent No. 5. Subsequently, the aforesaid attachment order was cancelled on the ground that the agency to which the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop had been attached was requested not to operate the said shop. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 again handed over the charge of the said Fair Price Shop to the petitioner on 22.07.2026. However, subsequently, on 03.08.2026, Respondent No. 3 allotted the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop to Respondent No. 5 without affording any further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner’s Fair Price Shop was neither suspended nor was the allotment made in her favour cancelled in accordance with law. Hence, the instant petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶23

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 3.8.2026 ANNEXURE P/1 issued by the respondent no.3.

¶24

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to allow to continue of the petitioner for operating the fair price shop of Village- Unchdih TahsilLundra, Distt-Surguja (C.G)

¶25

4

¶26

10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, having been passed without following the procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Society. Learned counsel contends that neither was the Fair Price Shop of the petitionerSociety suspended nor was the allotment made in its favour cancelled in accordance with law. Without following the procedure prescribed under Clauses 16(1) and 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, Respondent No. 3 proceeded to allot the said Fair Price Shop to Respondent No. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass the impugned order merely on the ground that the reply submitted by the petitioner-Society was not satisfactory. However, no reasons have been assigned as to why the explanation furnished by the petitioner-Society was found to be unsatisfactory. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, having been passed without proper consideration of the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner-Society.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Respondent No. 4 prepared an inspection report behind the back of the petitionerSociety and neither the said inspection report nor the documents relied

¶29

5

¶30

upon therein were ever supplied to the petitioner-Society. Thus, the petitioner-Society was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to controvert the material relied upon by the authorities.

¶31

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-Society had specifically denied the allegations levelled against it and had stated that it had neither violated any of the terms and conditions of the allotment nor committed any irregularity in the operation of the Fair Price Shop. Despite the specific explanation furnished and the documents produced by the petitioner-Society, Respondent No. 3 neither verified the facts nor duly considered the reply and supporting documents and proceeded to pass the impugned order in an arbitrary and mechanical manner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no provision under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 permitting attachment of an allotted Fair Price Shop in the manner adopted by Respondent No. 3. It is, therefore, contended that the action of Respondent No. 3 in attaching and thereafter allotting the petitioner-Society’s Fair Price Shop to Respondent No. 5, without following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid provision, is without authority of law. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that due and adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. A show-cause notice dated 10.06.2026 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner-Society submitted its reply on 18.06.2026. In the said reply, the petitioner-Society itself categorically stated that, if any deficiency

¶34

6

¶35

was found, the same would be adjusted and, therefore, some time be granted for the said purpose. The petitioner-Society further requested that physical verification of the Fair Price Shop be conducted once again and stated that it would make good the deficiency of food grains found in the stock.

¶36

Learned counsel for the State submits that the aforesaid statements made by the petitioner-Society in its reply clearly indicate that the deficiency of food grains in the stock was admitted by the petitionerSociety itself. Once the said deficiency had been admitted, no further enquiry was required to be conducted into the matter. The concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, found the same to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Government Fair Price Shop was initially attached temporarily to another Fair Price Shop situated at Village Jamdih. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued for allotment of the Government Fair Price Shop, pursuant to which the said Fair Price Shop was allotted to Respondent No. 5 in accordance with the prescribed procedure and applicable rules. It is submitted that the allotment in favour of Respondent No. 5 was made in accordance with law and, in the facts of the case, no further opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State further submits that, at present, the said Government Fair Price Shop is being operated by Respondent No. 5 in accordance with law.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it appears that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied to by the petitioner-

¶38

7

¶39

Society. In its reply, the petitioner-Society itself stated that there was a deficiency of food grains in the stock and that the same would be adjusted if some time was granted for the said purpose. The aforesaid statement made by the petitioner-Society prima facie indicates that there was a deficiency of food grains in the stock.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid, the authorities took action against the petitioner-Society and, thereafter, the Government Fair Price Shop was allotted to Respondent No. 5 in accordance with the prescribed procedure, after publication of the requisite notice in the newspaper. However, since the petitioner-Society has raised a grievance that it was not afforded a proper and effective opportunity of hearing before the allotment of the Fair Price Shop to Respondent No. 5, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is directed to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2016, and afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Society. Thereafter, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶41

11.It is made clear that, since the Government Fair Price Shop has already been allotted to Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 03.08.2026, the said allotment shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the aforesaid enquiry, which shall be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if, upon conclusion of the enquiry, it is found that the allotment made in favour of Respondent No. 5 is not in accordance with law, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶42

8

¶43

Till conclusion of the enquiry, the Fair Price Shop shall continue to be operated by Respondent No. 5 in terms of the allotment order dated 03.08.2026.

¶44

13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition

¶45

stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶48

Judge

¶49

Ruchi

Ujala Women Self Help Group- Unchdih v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujala Women Self Help Group- Unchdih v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases