Ta^.-^ r ^— (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w W.P.fC.lNO. ^<S5^ /2009 PETITIONER ,^\ .^••;^. ^^,^\>.v>s ^>^:}^' ..-'"^.^ y^- i^^ ^,<.: Vishwanath Singh Kushwaha S/o Late Shri Baleshwar Singh, Aged about 48 years, Occupation : Operator Annapuma Dal Bhat Kendra, R/o Civil Line, Manendragarh District Korea (C.G.) ^:.^ >',".-• VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, (Food) District Korea (C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue ) Manendragarh District Korea (C.G.) Q^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/^'fOF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L-.1-..- hlit» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shnvastava, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETJTION (Cl N0.2699^2009 Vishwanaih Singh Kushwaha Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: - Shri Manoj Mishra, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11th January, 2011) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finaily. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 21/04/2009 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Additional Collector, District-Koriya in the office of the Collector (Food) by which the allotment of Daj Bhat Kendra in favour ofthe petitioner has been canceded on certain aiiegations ot' irregularities. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of ailotment of Dal Bhat Kendra run by ihe petitioner has resuited in adverse serious consequences and the petitioner is depmed of his eaming by running the Dai Bhat Kendra sponsored by the Government. Amongst various grounds which have been raised by the petitioner, it is submitted that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was neither noticed nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him to show cause against the proposed cancellation. He submitted that whatever may be the allegations against the petitioner, he was entitied to one opportunity of hearing in the interest of justice and the respondent authority was under an obligation to give him notice and afford opportunity of hearing before passing the order. He submitted that on this ground aione, the I) impugned order is violation of Article 14 ofthe constitution of India and is liabie to be set aside. The other submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner is that the irreguiarities, which are aileged to have been committed by'the petitioner, were never committed by him. He submits that as the petitioner had moved an application seeking information under Right to Information Act, before Pubilc Information Officer, TahsiS Office, Manendragarh, he was humiliated and respondent No.3, with malafide intention, submitteoi a false report berore respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2, without affording proper opportunity, passed the jmpugned order with uiterior motive. 3. On the other hand, submission of learned State counsel is that there is no order of ailotment issued in favour of the petitioner. Leamed State counsei submits that vide order dated 28/1/04, Coiiector made aliotment of centre at Lok Nirman Vibhag (P.W.D.) Tiraha, Manendragarh in favour of one Sanjay Singh. He submits that in the absence of there being any valid aliotment in favour of the petitioner, the petitioners grievance that aliotment was canceiled, is wJthout any legai basis. The other submission of iearned State counsel is that certain complainte were received with regard to the irreguiarities committed by the petitioner whiie running Dal Bhat Kendra, upon which, an inspection was made in the presence of the petitioner. A report was submitted by Nayab Tahsildar, Manendragarh on 23/3/09 to Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Manendragarh in which the petitioner was found that he has committed irregularities and also that nobody purchased "Dal Bhat" from the centre and therefore the same may be closed. The Sub-Divisionai Officer vide his memo dated 23/03/09, recommended the Coilector to ciose the cenfre by stating that the petitioner has commiflted irregutarities. The centre is situated on Najui iand and during inquiry, the ^ ^:y%. ^s^ ,*^ ^ ......^ ^.. _../ J ^£^:1' s^ INI'MI' petitioner misbehaved with the steff. He submits that on the basis of aforesaid material, the Coilector passed the impugned order which does not suffer from any illegality. Submission of learned State counsel is that in view of the material which has been collected and in view of the fact that there was no aiSotment of centre in the name of the petitioner by the Coilector, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief oniy on the technjcal ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. I have considered the submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In the petition, the petitioner has made categoric averment in paragraph 8.3 and 8.4 ofthe petition that the petitioner submitted an application to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Manendragarh for running Annapurna Dal Bhat Kendra in Manendragarh Block and the concerning authority permitted the petitioner to run the said Dal Bhat Kendra in front of Janpad Panchayat Bhawan, Manendragarh. in paragraph 5 of the return, it has been stated that the petitioner was never permitted to run Dal Bhat Kendra at P.'W.D. Tiraha and one Sanjay SJngh was permitted. From the impugned order and also from the report which have been submitted by the Nayab Tahsildar as well as by the Sub-DSvisional Officer, it is nowhere mentioned that adverse order has been passed against the petitioner on the ground that there was no vaiid aliotment. Infact, an order canceiing allotment shov^ that the petitioner was permitted to run Dai Bhat Centre. Therefore, 1 am not inclined to throw the petition on that account. 6. From the return fiied by the respondents, it is clear that specific averments made in the petition that before underteking adverse action against the petitioner, --:;Tr%. t; ^^s:, • t.. Jj' no opportunity of hearing was afforded, has not been specificaily denied. There is nothing on record to show that before passing the impugned order, the Coilector (Food) gave any show cause notice to the petStioner. The report of Nayab Tahsildar shows that the petitioner has been found guilty of certain irregularities. It has aiso been stated in the report that the centre is being operated on Najul land. Therefore, it is ciear that certain adverse findings were recorded against the petitioner, which requires version of the petitioner to be obtained by affording him an opportunity of heanng, before accepting those reports and taking action on the same. it is not a case where "useiess formatity" theory wouid be applicable. The petitioner has neither admitted that the centre was run on a Najul land nor has admitted any irregularities. His stand is that the action is vindictive in nature. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No.2, to afford the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing to show cause against the proposed action ofcanceiiation, making him avaiiabie the report, which were made basis for taking adverse action. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is unsustainable on the ground that before passing impugned order, no show cause notice was given tothe petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21/4/09 passed by the Coilector (Food) District- Koriya is set aside. The respondent No.2 shall afford due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by issuing show cause notice. The enquiry shall be conciuded within an outer iimit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. if ultimately, the authority comes to the conclusion that allotment is not liable to be cancelied, the petitioner shali be (i ^!^€: v\ '"' ' ^•. . '^£^ Dyfeipli aflowed to run the centre as in view of the nature of altegations, it would not be proper to allow the petitioner to run the centre before finat orders are passed. 8. The petition is therefore allowed to the extent indicated as above. No order as to costs. SdJ- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude ^-