HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BS: Hon'bte Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri Justlce Prashant Kumar Mishra sl) Writ Apoeal No.361 of 2009 Apoellants Petitioners 1. 2. Respondents 4. 5. Smt. Savitri Malakar, Aged about54 years, Wto Shri Shobharam, Pr^jdent, MahMa Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar, Vinoba Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Smt. Sevti Izardar, aged about 45 years, W/o Jeevan Lal SeUer, Sanchalak.AdarshMahUaPrathrnJk SahkariUpbhokta Bhandar,Vinoba Nagar, Raigarh, District Rajgarh (C.G.) versus State of Chhattjsgarh, thrpugh the Secretary, Food Departmerf, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ralpur (Chhattisgarh) Minister, Department pf Khad Nagrik Apoorti Evam Upbhokta Sanrakshan, GovemmentofChh(2rttisgarh,D.KS. Bhawan. Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector (Food Branch), Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhaisgarh) Food Controller,D*^rictBilaspur(C.G.) Food Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Respondents No.1 to 5 respondents in the writ petrtion) were Present: Shri Varun Sharma, counsel forthe appellants. Shri SuryakantMj^ra.PanelLav^erfbrtheStat^/resppndents^o advance copy. Writ Appeal under Section 2 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hfeih Court (Aopeal to Division Benchl Act ORDER (15-12-2009) \Per Sunil Kumar Sinha. J.: '^) -z' Being aggrieved with the order dated 7-10-2009 (AnnexureA/1) passed in Writ Petition (C.) No.5722/20(»by theleamed Single 4udge ofthis Court,the appellants/petitioners have filed thiswrit appeal. 2. Adareh Mahila Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar was allotted a fair price shop under Chhattisgarh Publfc Djstnbutfon Sy?tem (Control) Order. 2004 (henceforth 'the Order. 2P04'), Qp acpount of certain irregujarities, a show cause nottee was issued to the appellants/petJtJpners/Qffice bearers of the spciety an<j yltimsiNly after giving them due ppportynjty of hearing allotment of falr pn<:se shop to the said society was canceljed by the Food Officer on 30-1 1 -2005. The aforesaid order was challenged jn an appeal teefore the CQllectpr but the appeal was also dismissed yide order dated 7-1-2Q()8. Then, another appeal was preferred befpre the State Government but the said appeal was also dismissed on 8-8-2009. After cl^mjssal pf the aforesaid appeals, the appellants/p^itionere, being the office bearers of the concemed society, filed Writ PetitiQn (C.) No.5722/2009. It was argued before the leamed Single Judge thsit whilt heanng the appeal, the State Govemment had called for a report from the Fpod Inspector but the report was not considered and the impugned prder was passed. The leamed Single Judge pbseryed that the petjtipners were dulyservedwithshowc9Usenptteewithi3espe^M^rtaini^ found in the fair pnce shop run bythe petitiQners' sociefy and the reply was calted. It was also observed that eartier also due to certain irregularities cQmmitted by the petition^re, 9 secprity deppsit of Rs.5,000/- was forfejted and the society was warned not to repeat the mistake in future. and cQnsidenng the aft3r^itd g(9Rec^ the ^ j H; ,, Jj •%,'y 5^ appellate aythprity/State has dismissed the appeal aiKl y|;)held the order of concemed authority whereby allptmentpf^ Nri?i1^ s^ the petjtioners' society has been cancelled. Qlx§ei^ng,alljh^^,ttie writ petition was dismissed. 3. Shri Varun Sharma, leamed counsel appearing on beha|tofthe appellantiB/petJtipners argued that a proper oppQrtynjt^ of tieiirjng was not afforded to the petitioners as per p®ra16 pf ^prder,20Q4, He submitted that the show cause notice dated 22-11-2005 wasissuedto the petitioners and they were called to flte thejr replywithin 7 d9^ and were also called for personal hearing on 28-11-^009, v^ichwg^not proper. 4. We have heard leamed counsel apR^gringJor th<? partjes at tength. Para 16 of the Order, 2004 provides for penalty, Sub-elause (1) of para 16 proyides that if shopkeeper contravenes any provision of agreement, his shop shall be liable for syspensjpn or cancellation by authorized ofRcer for allotment of fair price shop; Syb-clayse (3) of para 16 further provides that before cancellation pf aythority letter of fair price shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Officer of district, Sub-DivisJQnal OfRcer of sub-divjsion shall issue show cause notice and after giving him appropriate pppprtynity of hearing decision shall be made. It further provides that this actipn shall be completed within a month from issuance of show cause nottoe. After going through the entire provistons of para 16 of the Order, 2004, we do not find any provision whteh may provkfe for a notice of a particular period. The legislature in all its wisdom has used the words like "appropriate opportunity" which makes the intention very ctear that •-'^, •;:.-€1" ; ^ .;•. ^^:/ -^' the opportunity of hearing should be in such a manner that the concemed person may avajl it and may present his pase for consideration before the concemed authority. In the present case, we find that the notice was issued on 22-11-2005 and the appellants/petitioners were called ypon tp glve their replywithin 7 days and they were also called uppn for perspnal hfBannig pn 28-1 1 -2005. In the above facts and drcumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants/petitjoners were not gjven appropriate oppprtynftyoftieanng as per sub-clause (3) ofpara 16 ofthe Order, 2004. 5. For the foregoing reaspns, we do not find any jllegiilfty or jrregularity in the impugned order passed by the teamed Single Judge. The appeal has no merit, the same js Hable tp be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage jtself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal