,y..-^ ^.0r" ^.^0<// CV'.-^o-C .. '^^.Sl^ @ ^••My r'7-y ...••'/"'<'" ^' C..^ L^7 ^.^•- ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR :C.G. W.P.(C)No3i-f3oOf2010 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226.CONSTITION OF INDIA Petitioner : Gram Panchayat, Semaria Through- Sarpanch, Smt.Suruj Bai W/o Shiv Prasad Kurrey, Satnami, aged 35 years, R/o village Semaria, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Vs. Respondents : 1) State Of C.G. Through- Secretary, Department ofFood, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection,Raipur r" 2) Collector (Food Department) Bilaspur T"' 3) Sub- Divisional Officer(Revenue), Lormi, District Bilaspur 4 ) mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fQ No. 3490 of 2010 PETITIONER : Gram Panchayaf, Semaria. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofC.G. & Others. WR[T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SBLHon'bIe Shri Satish K. AgmhrtrL J, Present: Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, Advocate forthepetitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduii, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 22nd day of July, 2010) 1. The case ofthe petitioner is that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi, District Bilaspur, on the basis of a complaint of alleged irregularities by the public, has suspended the allotment of the fair price shop to the petitioner i.e. Gram Panchayat Semariya, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, by order dated 29.04.2010 (Annexure P/1A) which was allotted to the petitioner by order dated 11.05.2006 (Annexure P/3), and has further attached the same for its operation with the Marketing Society, Lormi. 2. It appears that thereafter, the matter was taken to the Collector in appeal by the petitioner. The Collector, by order dated 13.05.2010 (Annexure P/2) directed that the Food Controller to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the basis of documents collected and thereafter submit a report to the Colleetor. No order has thereafter been passed by the Collector till date. 3. According to leamed counsel for the petitioner, the fair price shop is being run by some Marfceting Society, without proper allotment. Shri i '^\ ^».,^~ .^ Agrawal, submits that the allotment and running of the shops is govemed by Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 (for short 'the Order, 2004') Para 16 ofthe Order, 2004 provides for cancellation of the fair price shop or for forfeiture of whole or part of the security amount deposited by the shopkeeper, only after issuance ofshow cause notice and after affording a proper opportunity ofhearing to the owner ofthe fair price shops. It is further provided that the entire action may be completed within a period of one months of the date of issuance of the show cause notice. Shri Agrawal submits that nothing has been done in this case and only on the basis of alleged complaint by some persons, the ultimate decision to cancel the allotment of fair price shop was taketi, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution oflndia. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the Collector, having noticed that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, by his order dated 13.05.2010 has directed the Food Controllerto afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to submit a report. It is further submitted that though the initial order dated 29.04.2010 was initially stayed on 03.05.2010, however, once the opportunity of hearing was afforded before the Collector, it appears,was taken as sufficient compliance of the provisions of sub-para 3 of para 16 of the Order, 2004. Sub-para 3 ofpara 16 ofthe Order, 2004 reads as under: "16. Penalty. (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Before cancellation of authority letter of Fair Price Shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Amit y £.. !tH: Amit Controller or Food Officer of district, Sub-Divisional Officer ofsub-division shall issue show cause notice and after giving him appropriate opportunity of hearing decision shall be made. This action shall be completed within a month from issuance ofshow cause notice. (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) xxx xxx xxx" 6. There is no contemplation of an enquiry after passing of the order of cancellation. Further, in the case on hand, the order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, mentions the word ofsuspension and not cancellation, though admittedly, there is no provision in the Order, 2004 for suspending the allotment of the fair price shops under any scheme. 7. On bare perusal of the provisions of law as enshrined in sub para 3 of para 16 ofthe Order, 2004, it is clear that no cancellation order can be passed without issuing a show cause notice and affording proper opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. In the case on hand, nothing has been done before the order dated 29.04.2010 was passed. It is a gross violation of the statutory provisions as well as violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution oflndia. 8. Without going into the merits ofthe case, the order dated 29.04.2010 (Annexure P/l and P/1A) and the order dated 13.05.2010 (Armexure P/2) are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with the provisions oflaw and in view ofsub para 3 ofpara 16 ofthe Order, 2004. 9. The writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge