IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No.36-?^ / 2005 PETITIONER ^..-^^ j^^y ^;"''../' A/ ..."*' y Q\-~'/'' .f'~ /•'Gajanad Prathamik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar, a Registered Society under the provisions of Chhattisgarh "Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having its Registration No. 17/1561 through its President, .Bhaiaf Lal S/o Late Shri J.L. Agarwal, Aged about 42 years; RVo Jatyapara , Having Pair Price Shop at Ward No.16/3, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Food Branch Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) The Food Controller, Raipur District-Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA B XI—HC-22 9 y,‘ 3am, Wm, Wmw / 3mm mm w2é2$/0iH1 200 m WEN mm WWW wwwmwtm waimm‘aa aawm 8-8-2005 Shri P. Diwakar, Senior Advacu+¢ wi+h Shri K.. 5. Paw, Advocate for ‘the pe‘rifioner-s. Shri Smdecp Dubey, Govt Advoam for iha Smn/r-espondzms. Since The Wrif P ‘H‘rions No.3608/ZOO5, 3614/2005, 3615/2005, 3616/2005, 618/2005, 3619/2005, 3621/2005, 3638/2005, 3637/2005, 636/2005, 3635/2005, 3627/2005, 3626/2005, 3625/2005, 623/2005 md 3622/2005 reh‘te +o suspension of fair price shops, which were allo'H'ed To ‘rhe only one monf ‘back, vide order da‘l'ed 21422005611 petitioners) account of violation of me clauses of Public Dish-ibu1ion Sfafem (Confrol) Order, on'd also violm‘ion of condifion: of' fhe agreemen‘r enfered i fo between ihe pe'rifioners and fhe Licencing Au‘Haorhy, 'rhe fore, 1hey\ar-e being disposed of by this common order. I have-heard Shri . Diwakar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Senior Cou lfor the petitioners submitted that ~rIC-22 mm WWW During impedion, fhe In ing Au‘rhorify no‘Hcod fha‘l' cerfain registers were no? found in the shops as we” as fair price display nofice board was a‘t displayed and ofher clauws of Order, 2004 were no‘r bein complied wi‘rh, and also violation of The agraement was noti Normally for surh minor violation always fine is imposed wh reas, in ‘rhe presenf cases, drasi'ic action has been taken. It not physically possible to inspect so many shops In one aay a It was done Within one month from opening of the shops th refore action of respondents is arbitrary and too harsh to he‘petitioners. Therefore,orderbe amiss-18 of the said order provides for an appeal. Even though the word ‘suspension has been used. But, from perusal of the said order, the lmguag shows that it is almost cancellation, as such in my considered opinion, the order in question is Therefore, the petiti hers should file an appeal before the State Government? as it is evident from impugned order Annexure—P/3 that the Fo d Controller has passed the said l, w 7 lf't wti‘hinagaw‘tg‘iod‘ ofd s f c n AC—22 WW mm WWW WWW§WW %3T%wsn%w days from foday and fhe Sfa‘l’e Govemmenf should decida fhe appeal wifhin a period of ll monfh from fhedaie of receip‘l' of The appeal in accordance ifh law affer giving opporlunify of hearing to the peti‘lioners. In the meanfime, ill The appeal is dacided, shops in quesfion should no? be allo fed To any ofher parfy. Wifh fhe direc+ion aforesaid, the above wrif peiitions sfand disposed of. in view of fhls 0rd r, all the pending applications also stand disposed of. Parties are entitled tor- certified copy of this order. Sdl- LC. Bhadoo "audge