^ ^rj . ^-'H .^^ty^:^^ S^5^^-'-^. l^^—^^".;^^? HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR. CHHATTISQARH SiNGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRITPETITION N0.3594 OF2004 PETITIONER: Vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. Women Self Help group through Presictent Smt Pramila, W/o Shri Sumeshwar, age about 26 years, Resident of Village Gangoti, Tahsil - Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretafy Food, D.K.S. Bhawan,, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Surguja (Food) Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) Asst. Food Officer - Surajpur - Distt. Surguja. Adimjati Seva Sahkari Samiti, Sonpur (Banja) through Salesman Awadesh Gupta, S/o Shri Radheshyam, age about 27 years, vilJage Sonpur, P.0. Bariya, Tah: Surajpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Present: Smt. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Agrawal, leamed Dy. A.G. for the State/ respondents 1 to 3. Shri A.K. Shukla, leamed counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 31st March, 2006) Women Self Help Group, Gangoti village, Surajpur Tahsil, Surguja District represented by its President has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the validity of the order of the Assistant Food Officer, Surajpur, the 3rd respondent herein dated 03-09-2004, cancelling the ailotment of fair "(^ ^^^-^ ^^^s^^ ^.ff^-^S-;•-—.• -;•.^^tt^i:rj'l's~\ price shop earlier allotted to the petitioner - Society vide order dated 28- 07-2004 and allotting the same in favour ofthe4th respondent herein. (2) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings filed by them, 1 find an apparent flaw which vitiates the impugned action ofthe 3rd respondent. (3) As per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Food Stuffs (Distribution & Control ) Order, 1960 the &^vemment of Chhattisgarh has framed Chhatlsgarh (Food Stuffe) Civil Supplies Distribution Scheme, 2001 (for short 'the Scheme'), the petitioner - Society apptied to the 3 respondent for allotment of a fair price shop inGangoti vijlage, in the year 2004. It appears that there were no other applicants for allotment of fair price shop in Gangoti village. The 3rd respondent having considered the application of the petitioner - Society, by his order dated 28-07-2004, allotted the fair price shop to the petitioner - Society to be established in Gangoti village. When the matter stood thus, it appears that the 4 respondent herein on 25-08-2004 made an application to the 3rd respondent for allotment of a fair price shop in Gangoti village, on the basis of priority contained in sub-clause (2) ofthe Scheme . The 3rd respondent acting on the saidappliGation and without notice to the petitioner-Society, by his order dated 03.09.2004, cancelted his earlier order dated 28.07.2004 and allotted the same shop in favour of the 4th respondent-Society. (4) The facts stated supra and the records placed before the Court would reveal that as on 28.04.2004, there were no other rival applications for allotment of fair price shop in Gangoti village except the ^ -3- ^^.. application of the petitioner-Society. Therefore, the 3 respondent applying preferences incorporated in sub-clause (2) of the Scheme to choose a person or Society for allotment of fair price shop wouid not have arisen. In other words, the action of the 3 respondent inaltotting the fair price shop tn Gangoti village in favour of the petitioner-Society vide his order dated 28.07.2004 could not be faulted with. Simply because, subsequent to 28.07.2004, the 4th respondent-Society, even assuming that the Society is a preferred Society compared to the petitioner-Society, made an application for allotmentof fair price shop, that fact itself would not invalidate the order already made by the 3rd respondent on 28.07.2004. Secondly, the impugned order should be condemned being violative of principles of natural justiceand Article 14 postulates. No noticewas issued to Uie petition-Sodety to have its say in the matter before cancelling the allotment order dated 28.07.2004. Affected should be appraised is a constitutional creed flowing from Artide 14 of the Constitution and that rule has been vioteted by the 3rd respondent-Statutory Authority. (5) In the result and for the foregoing reasons, ttie writ petition is allowed and the order dated 03.09.2004 marked as Annexure R-2, cancelling the allotment order dated 28.07.2004 made in fevour of the petitJoner-Society and allottjng the same shop in favour of the 4th respondentis quashed. Nocosts. — Sd/- Chief Justice s