2 HSGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTJSGARH: BiLASPUR Slnaie Bench: - Hon'ble Shrl S.R. NAYAK, CJ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRST PETSTION N0. 5993 OF 2Q05 Aadi Shakti Swayatt Co-operative Primary Sub Bhandar, Sirsakhurd, Block - Durg, Distt. Durg, through - Presldent - Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Late Shri Kedar Prasad aged 35 years, R/o viliage Sjrsakhurd, Durg (C.G.). Versus 1. StateofC.G. Through - Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Coijector (Food), Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Asstt. Food Officer, Food Office, Coiiectorate Durg (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisjonai Officer (Revenue) Durg (C.G.) Present: Mr. TX, Tiwari, ieamed counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on 29th November 2005) The impugned action could not be sustained on a short ground of viotation of principlos of natural justico and fairnoss in aotion. A fair price shop was alSotted to the petitioner by the third respondent vide order ^w^^-^..^,^,-^.^.^.^^^ 22 -^L- passed in the month of September 2004 and since then he has been running the fair price shop. When the matter stood thus, the authorization to run fair price shop has been cancelled by the respondent No. 4 vide his order dated 14-11-2005 without notice to the petitionor. Of course, the impugned order would disdose that in pursuance of 21 poficy decision taken by the State Govemment r»otto allow more than one fair price shop to an individual, the order seems to have been passed. But it is the definite case of the petltioner that he js not having more than one authorization to run fa.ir price shop, Be that as It may, since it is the cardinal principles flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the affected should be appraised, fairness in action required the fourth respondent to issue a notico to the petitioner in the first instance and then to take appropriate action in terms of the policy evoived by the State Govemment. That has not been done in this case. On that short ground, the writ petition is ailowed. The impugned order is quashed, however, with no costs. However, this order shali not come in the way of the fourth respondent or any other appropriate respondents-authorities from taking steps to cancel the authorization granted to the petitioner, in accordance wsth law, ifthere is anywarrantto do eo. Sd/- Chief Justice &^°y\^