^-\^Q IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) '^^^—/2011 Petitioner: ^o y<ei,s®'^v^s^ ^^<T1AV S.a\®A--"' Versus Mahila Swa-Shahayata Sainooh, Dakwa (Chanchi), Post-Baghima, Tehsil-Rajpur, District-Sarguja, through its President- Sint.Dhanpatiya, aged about 35 years, wife of Kashturani, resident of- village-Dakwa, post-Baghima, Tehsil-Rajnagar, Sarguja (CG) Respondents; 1. 2. 3. 4. 'f"' State of Chhatisgarh, through its Principal Secretary, DKS Bha-wan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) The Collector, Sarguja (CG) The Food Officer, Ainbikapur, Sarguja (CG) Shri Sidhnath Paikara, MLA, resident of C-2/19, Anand Nagar, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER AKTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATi'lSCjARH AT BI1.A8PIJR -4' WBJT PETmON (C) No. 3732 of2011 111 ll-U Samooh. Dakwa, VRRSTJS State ofChhattissarh & Others. WEJT PETmON LWDER ARTICL.E 226/227 OF THE, CONSTmmON '"\TI TK'rr^T A ii^i^lr^. ,J. t: Shri Manish NiBam, Advocate f< Shri Ani.n Sao, Oovcnimsni Adv NoHe for the resoondent No. 4. d' 1. r*— <•<-.. "< ,G ior iiic &iate. soite service ofnotice. ^ (Passed on 17"' day ofOctob October,2011) ChalSense in fhis oef.ition is to the order dated 24,06.2011 (Anaexi.tre P/l) whereby the a.llot.ment of semi-deaiership for distribution of kemsene has been cancelled on the aroimd that the kerosene is beine distributed to the fair nrice shoos, bv the oetitioner-a'oun in less aiiantitv. Shri N'iga.m. lea.med counsei a.pDea.rine for tfae netitioner submits that on 03.01.2008 t'A_nnexiire P./2V the 'oetitioner-erouD was authorized to distribute kerosene to 18 fair orice shoos at Raiour Block of Districf. Sursiiia., Tfaereafi.er. a. show cause notice was issued on 25.05.2011 ('Aimexiire ~P/4) st.atiae therein that Sarnanch of 11 .srani oaacfaavats are not satisfied with the distribirtioti work perfonned bv tfae petitioner-eToun and 'iliev have reniiested to aliot the work of distribution of keroseiie to anv otfaer erouo. The petitioner-CTOiro filed its reolv on 11.06.2011 CAnnexiire P/5'i stating therein that there is ao OTievance with the distribution work of the netitioner-erouD. Even the Saroaach of a,l} the sram pa.nchayats ha.ve also not made any complaiiit. with resard to their dissatisfa.ct.ion ia respect. of distribution of kerosene oil bv the petitioner-group. Shri Nigam fiirther submits that without considering the above facts. the Food QiBcer. for CoSIector. Surgiija, by impugned order dated 24.06.2011 (Annexitre P/'l) caaeeiled the allotment order on some other ground i.e. less suppiv ofkerosene, whicfa was not the subiect matt.er ofeither the a 4. 7. show cause notiee or the al5eeed comD!aJat ('Aimexure R/l). T!ms. TUe u CT ana aesen?es TC Qn the other hand. Sbri Sao. leamed counsel aooearing for tli resoondent No. 1 t.o 3 suhmits that the Samanctas of 11 eram oanchavats were not satisfied with the distribu'tion work of the Detitionsr-eroiiD. a-s is evident from the Setter addressed to resoondent No. 4. Siddhanath Pa.ikra. Pariiamentarv Secretarv. fAnnexi»reByi), Thus. the impuened cn-der is just. and Drooer. Tfie resoondent No. 4 has ohosen not. to anoear before this Court. desoite ser<?ice ofnotice. Heard leamed coimsel aonearing for the part.ies. nemsed the n.eaamgs Oa oeni.sa.1 ofthe letter dafed nil CAnnexiire Wl) alleeedlv sent. bv the Sa.rDanchas of various sram oancfaavatiii. it is foimd that there was no grievance with reeardto suonlv ofless auaiititv ofker<»ene bv the Detitioner-groun and the show cause notice dated 25.05.2011 also does not disclose the rea-son of short. supply of Kerosene by the petilioner-group. In reply also, sccordmgly, no resnonse was siibmitf.ed bv the Defjtioner-grouo. However. it was t-rf-. anv sr.atea mai. ise saroa-ncna.s wno nave aiieeeaiv wrm.ea a letter to ths resoondent No. 4 have riven a cert.ificate statiae clearlv that the distribution of kerosene was mads res'idariv and Ihere was no (iiiestion of anv dissa.tisfact.ion with the distribution made bv the oetitionei'-srouo, The imDuened order was nassed. it a.Doea.re. on other extraaeous consideratious as ths reasoa assiened in the imousned order does not find olace either in the alieeed comola.int or ia the show cause notice which remained undisclosed to the petitioner. In view of the foregoine. t.he imDUErned order dated 24.06.20.11 (-Aimexijre P/l) is quas'ned. Accordinely, the writ petition is allowed witfa cost auantified to be Q. sum of Rs. 2000/- which ma.v be recovered from Ihe officer concemed oassine fee imougned order. ifso advised. ' _-. "=-^ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge