' WRIT PETITI C £0J20'78 2008 I WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER Mitra ndal Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandai‘ sidentr Bhagwati Prasad Namdev, S/o I Shri R charan Namdev, Aged about 60 years, R/o Ra ' agar, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Ward, Raipur Distric ipur (CG) COmpou ‘u , Near Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (CG) .3. HON’BLE SHE! DHIREND ' MIS 2.7.2008 Shn' Mattcn Siddiqui, co n sel for the pctiiiontr. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Heard. ' Thc pe11'tioner is a Coopex Society. A fair price shop of Saxtlar Vanabh Bhai Patel Wald. Raipu as allotted to the pen'tioner, however, on the basis of the complaint 1 d ged by the residents of the wani, the Food Contmner,Raipur issue ‘show cause 'notiCe’ to the petitioner— society and after inquiry, allotmnt of fair price shop was cancelled on the allegat‘on' of'c‘erfaiu ii’neg .: ' ‘ s. The petitioner pmfened appeal befoxe the Collector, Raipm‘ against the cancellationsofth price shop and the same has been H1 a I e m t — a a’ e r d . J. 6 H ' ' - a e RESPONDENTS 1. 2. ‘3. Near Ghai Chowk, Raipur (CG) 4.’ Food Ispector, Raipur' City Caxiectoraté mm V 311%“m (We) M200 I ( ‘ I WM WW kaifmm \ mmm -2, dismissed. Thereafter, the pe' State Govcmment, which has order of Annexum P—4. Learned counsel for tbJ cancena1ion of the £ajr price s1 of sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 df the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution '4 (for short ‘Order of 2004’). The mr, Cooperative Societies was not larih'es found against the petitioner’s fair ed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of the impugned order passed by the Food ibsequently coniirmed in appeal by the bv‘ the State Government, can not be :in'oner preferred a ‘ ‘on befoxe the been further rejected by the impugned :> petitibner submits that the order of Lop has‘been Iendered in utter disregard . System (Control) Order 2M (DV. Registrar] Asst. Regis communicated about the irregu price shop on enquiry conduc Order of 2004. Therefore, the Controller, which has been s1 Collector and in the revision sustained. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, State submits that the irregula to violation of Rule 11 (3)(5)(€ However, he does' not dispu‘ communicated the Dy; Regi about the irregularities found rule (4i of Rule 16 of the Orde may be reserved to respond provisions of sub—rule (4) of basis of enquiry report of the E learned Dy. Advocate General for the rities found against the petih'oner pertain (9), 13(2) av. 15 of the Onier of 2004. e that the inspecting odicer has not Asst. Reg‘strar, Cooperative Societies in enquiry as contemplated under sub- of2004. He further submits that liberty t-Food Controller to comply with the 16 before imposing penalty on the quirv Onicer. s / m , mam (Wu) mmm ' In vicw of the submissions of leainéid counsel for the paxtics, the .er of Anneémre P—2, passed by the Food re P—3, pasgsed by the Collector in appeal -4, passed thy the State Government in or non-compliance of sub-rule {4) of Rule ‘ . H1200 - } y \ l wm wmr< wamum \ C ’9 petitionisva'llo'wed and the orc‘ Contiollsr, order of the Annext and the oxder of Armature P mvision, am hexebv Set aside i? 16 of the Order of 2004. ‘ However, liberty is res: accordance with sub-rule (4) imposing any penalty on the ‘ P*:1, dated 25.3.2006. med to Food Oontmller to proceed in 3f Rule 16 of the Order of 2004 before Jasis of the enquiry report of Annexure Sdl- Dhirendra Mishr m a r g