Vs. 1. Ms. Savitri JIiariya, aged about 32 years, W/o. Shatrughaa Prasad JIiariya, President of Raai Setf Help Group, ViOage Mandalatola, Gram. Paachayat Maadalaltoal, R/o. ViUage Mandalatola, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham) (CG) State of Chliattisgarh, Tbrough CoUector, Distt. Kabudham. Sub-DivisionaI Kawaidha (CG) Officer (Revenue), WRIT PEiTITIOli UNDER ARTILCE 226 OP THB CONSTITUTXON OF INDIA Hon'ble Mr. Satisto K. Agnlhotri, J.) Shri Sudhir Venna, couxisel for fhe petitioner. Shri Arviad Dubey, Paaei Lawyer for the State. (Passed oa thas 25th day of October, 2007) The petitioner was allotted a fau- price shop of Gram Panchayat Mandalatola, Sub-Division Bodla, District Kabirdham on 15.09.2005. On accoitat of certaia irregularities found by fhe aufhorities, a show cause notice dated 18.11.2005 (Armexure P/6) was issued caUiug upon the petitioner to explain. as to why the aBotaient of the shop be not canceUed under fhe provisions of Public Distribution Systein (Control) Order 2004 aad uader fhe provisions of Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Conuiiodities Act, 1955. The petitioner subiuitted response to 'the said notice on 21.11.2005 (Aanexure P/7) explaining her conduct aad praying for sympathetic consideration and consigniag the show cause notice to the record. After haviag considered ttie representation of fbe petitioner, Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha by order dated 26.11.2005 (Aanexure P/8) cancelled the aUotment ofthe fatr price shop under the provisions of Clause 11(3} (5) of ftie C.G. PubUc Distribution -S-- ^p System (Control) Order 2004 (hereinafter reterred to as "the ordei^) and Section 3 read with Section 7 of fhe Essential Conunodities Act, 1955 (hereiaafter referred to as "the Acf). ^ The petitioner thereafter preferred au appeal before the CoUector, Kabirdham (Kawardba) who, after haviag considered aU the facts, disinissed the appeal Iiolding that the order dated 26.11.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was just and proper. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Ardcle 226 of fhe Constitution of ludia. On query, leamed counsel appeariug for fhe petitioner subjnits that fhough the impugned order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the CoBector is quasi-judicial ia nature, however, ffae petitioner preferred to ffle this petition seekiag a writ in fhe nature of inaadamus to call for tbe records aad a writ in the uature ofcertiorari to quash the impugned order. 6. On further query as to whether any statutory or fundamental right is violated or likely to be violated, leamed counsel for the petitioner subinits fhat a show cause notice was issued pursuaat to some pretmunaiy enquiry wliereia tfae petitioner was not given opportuxuty to put forward his case. Thus, this impugned order passed by the CoUector deserves to be quashed. 7. I have heard leamed couasel appearing for the parties aad perused the records. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the show cause notice was not issued on the basis of any euquiry. If there was auy preluniaaiy enquiry, no notice was required to be given to ftie petitioner as the show cause notice was issued oa 18.11.2005 to which the petitioner Jias filed Iiis reply on 21.11.2005. The petitioner had sufficient opportuiuty to put forward his case in the reply. TIie aUotmeiit drder was caiiceUed by order dated 26. 11.2005 oii account ofviolation ofClause 11(3) (5) ofthe order and under fhe provisions ofSection 3 read with Section 7 offhe Act. 8. TIie petitioner has tailed to produce the Control order as wefl as the provisions oftheAct. - - ^ 9. I have gone fhrough the provisions ofSection 3 read with Section 7 offh.e Essential Coininodities Act, 1955. Section 7 oftlie Essential Cominodities Act, 1955 prescribes that if aay person contravenes aay order under Section. 3- he shaU be puaishable for imprisonment or his property niay be forfeited ete. Clause ll(3) Si. (5) of the order provides for niakuig atl essential entires iu ffae ration cards and essential conunodities should not be sold witbout ration card. 10. The aufhorities iastead of imposing puiushjnent of imprisoninent or forf'eituig fh.e property, has chosen to caacel the aUotiuent of the fair price shop m. favoiu- of fhe petitioner. 11. The ai^ument ofthe counsel for the petitioner that the aufhorities have 110 right to cancel tfae aUotment is wittiout any basis aud. his allotment was canceUed for violation of the provisions of Clause 11 (35(5) oftheOrder. 12. Looking froni aay augle, fhe petitioner has not established aay seinblaace of a ftuidamental right or a legal right whicli have been atlegedly violated. Tbe inipugned order of caaceUatioa of fau' price shop was passed afber affordlag proper opportuuity of hearing to the petitioner. 13. This Court in exercise of fhe power under Article 226 of fhe Constitutlon of India cannot decide questiou of fact as fh.e sauie has attaiaed finality before ftie CoUector iu Appeal. 14. Thus, fhere is no laerit ia fhis case and this petition deserves to be aad is dismissed sumiuarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Suguna