IN TiIE HIGIICOURTOFJUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT , BILASPUR PETITIONER -^f'/ ^w/ ^w/ f..-' <^/ft<- /^<ff ^? <?<y RESPONDENTS k'(?^K ^..-.'. W.P. No. .M-^7_ /^OO^ Radha Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh, a Registered Society under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having its Re^istratioii No. 17/^961 through its President, Sml. Devki'Sonkar W/o Kailash Sonkar, Agccl about 40 years; R/o Chhattisgarh NaKiar, Raipur Having Fair Price Shop at Wai't) N.o.40/2, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.O.) Versus - ^ ^ ^ ; ^ /A ^ v - •iy- ^>l. 2)/' 3) State of Chhattisgarh ^THr'ough Secretary, Pood Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Food Branch Raipiii, District: Raipur (C.O.) The Pood Controller, Raipur District-Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3626/2005, 3625/2005, 623/2005 and 3622/2005 rela‘i'z 1'0 ‘ suspension of fair price shops, which were aiia‘H‘ed ‘ro fhe pemioners) only one mom back, vide order dated 215/4005) on. account of vioiaiion of e ciauses of Public Distribufion Sysfem (Confrol) Ordcr, ‘H'ie agreemem emered i To beiween ‘ihe pefi‘i'ioners and fhc Licensing Au‘l'hor'i‘iy, The fore, iheycre being disposed of by This common order. . Diwakar, learned Senior Counsei for I have heard Shri The peTiTioners. Learned Senior C for fhe peiil'ioners submit‘led fhat o l ed out. . and also violafion of condifions of ‘w t' ‘ ‘ isos‘aidiiha'i i apec‘ m ' XI—HC—zz ,9 , 3am,m?mmgw mm Wm ‘4«g8.‘35.2.3mW1 zoo m ma WW WWW mm§wm wafaw %3T%m1%91 8-3-2005 5m P. Diwakar, saw Admm um shri K. s. Pm, Advocate for the pai‘rioners. &x Shri Smdeep Dglbey, Advocm'e for tha Smn/respondcnfs. Since The Writ P‘ti‘rions No.3608/2005, 3614/2005, 3615/2005, 3616/2005, 618/2005, 3619/2005, 3621/2005, 3638/2005, 3637/2005,- 636/2005, 3635/2005, 3627/2005, 'rIC-22 During inspec+ion, the Inspécfing Amhari‘ry noficed fha‘f cer‘rain ragis‘l'ers were no? found iin the shops as we“ as fair price display mfice boar-d was of displayed and othzr clnmvq of Order, 2004 were not bein complied wifh, md also violation of The agreement was noticed Normally for such minor violation always fine is imposed whereas, in fhe present omen, dras‘l‘ic acfion has been taken. If woo no+ physically possible ‘ro inspect so many shops in one day md if was done wifhin one monfh from opening of the shops, fherefore, ac‘l'ion of respondenfs is arbirrary and Too harsh to t stayed. order provides for an appeal. Even Clause-l8 of the said though the word ‘wspensioni has been used. Eut, from perusal of the said order, the language opinion, the order in question is appeaiable. > Therefore, the petitioners should file m appeal before the it he petitioners. Therefore, order be shows that it is almost cmcellation, as such in my considered State Government as is evident from impugned order Annexure—P/3 that the Fo «a.?...9.z£2 .m. 'mm, Wm,W *mm 720 w zoo mm amimuf‘ga WWW #f, 3 mm%'w®grt aamm days from foday and ‘rhe appeal wi‘l‘hin a period 0f fhe appeal in accordance hearing to 'rhe petitioner-s question shouid na‘l’ be allo1 Wifh fhe direc‘rion sfmd dusposed of In View of *his order, a" the pending appi-icafions also stand disposed of. Par-Ties are enfifled for cerfified copy of This order. Sdl- l _ iJudg'e $fo?e Goverhmen‘r should decide fhe 1 monfh from 'l'he dafe of moip‘l' of wifh law offer giving opporfuniiy of In The meanttme 1h" The appeal Is decided shops m "red fo any ofher‘ parfy. aforesaid, fhe above wr-H' pofifions L.C. Bhadoo l i 1 ‘ i