':sw^^~-'. Sa^'^iiS^', ^s (;; C . ! ,q 3 c - 'r" f"' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fC) N0. (-'^^L\ /2011 PETITIONER ^".p^r' cs^''t AW' .ff^,\ Sakhi Sudha Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuha, Gram Panchayat Chouha, Block- Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). Through- its President Smt. Krishna Bai Khunte W/o Shri Ramnath Khunte, aged about 37 years, R/'o village Chouha, Block- Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS \^ VERSUS ^n. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Bilaspur Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. The Sub Divisional Officel- ® Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. Shri Devendra Bagga, The Food Inspector Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). , 5. Gram Panchayat Chouha, Block- Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) Through- its President Smt. ^) ^ Ramkumarikant W/o Shri Vigyankant, aged about 45 years, R/o village Chouha, Block- Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). 6. Smt. Ramkumarikant W/o Shri Vigyankant, aged about 45 years, R/o village Chouha, Block- Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '^^ /i^ . < ^^^ •O'T.niL? ^«"iTTT.?Trt'T."' .r'TJ'O' ArrwT''TOBT"lAXSTJ' ,^rr 'OT'i A OT>T TT? r~i t\.^r~i <^'</i.^i\js \JT ^^-s~tr~i"it i i€^'^.7'-\T\n, ..-^ i oii/.^iL^a" i/.i'\ s'iSTT3T~F; Ti'U' ';l'^ i Ta'^t'^T /'.'•"S '%-T^ ,f~1^/' A ^£:rbf''.'", WK11rtil'l'llLUS (t;)r-lo. 6'/64ca:2Ull VI ^tU A Jl x'lillilUJNUK RESPONDENTS Sakhi Sudha Mahiia Swa Saha.va.ta saiiiuna. VJ?'D^J TS V a^/K^lJi": St-ats ofChhattiss.arfl <& Ol.her.s, 1. WSH' PEIITION UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONSinVnQN^E INDIA SB: Hoii'bte Shri Satish K. Affniiinfa'i, .1. Present: Shri R.B-.Soai. Advocate for the c'etitioner. Shri Suinesh Bajaj, Govsn'm'isEi. Advocate for Ihe Slals resDOiident No, 1 to 3'. /P.tCCA-^ .A-n 1 oui .'4--*T,- ^f~'\J^^.7^yyt^^-y 'a»A"! 1 \ >,r.iZ5sic:^ iju 10 u<i.j ui i^uv^Hiu^.i^ A(U'II s Lea.med eousisel aDDea.riii^ for the oetitioiier subnsits that 't.he show eausc notiee dated 29.08,2011 fAiiE'iex'ure P/10S]' was issued t.Cf 'the Dctilioi'ier 3.nd reDlv (AiiiieAi^re P/ll") t.o th@ said Botiec wa.s also filed anci thereafter. the imr'uaned order dated 20.09.2011 (Axin.exi^tc p./l) wss p^issed wh^reby slio'tiii^iil. o7 fh.ir pticc shop' t.o the netitioner has beea cancelled and it has been directed to hasd over the shoo t.o the Gram Panchavat. Chauha, Shri Soni fi.in.hst submit^ tha:t &e show causfi notice does not sct oiit a?iv ca.use ot aetaon and also. &§rsi©va?itdocun'ient.s wore not suoplied witli llic show ca.use notice to the Detitioner. Havmg heard lea.med coiiii9el a.Dt?caiin2 &r 't.he r?etitioiier a.isd OB Derusal of the dociiments. it i^ found Ihat the i^et.itionsr ha.s not ra.iScu. tiiis obj§ct.ion. betors tiic Siit? l..)ivisiQXisi G^iliesr ^j^cvsiiue) (fbr sho'r't 'the >SDO'*) Biiasniir. and filed reDlv iii detail to the show caxxss notic©=E-iiuuirv wa.s coiiduct-ed 9.S:.eT exs-iiihiin^ the Det.itioner a.s weli a.s other witnssses ^nd it. wa.s Ibiind that serio'us irfesiilarities wcfc eoninuUed bv the uel.it.ioD.sr ?2,nd 011 thot basis. v\ tli^ declsioii to c^.iicei the ^llotnisnt Qf fa.ir price shoo to tiie T'eT.iT.ioiier wss x^.K.siis liie COIITSHTIOH- x.ti^x Tii©siiow cs-ijsg uoxice does not ni^.k'.^ oii.t. ^nv e^.se ^s there wa.s sio sr^ecific ^lls2^t.iQii ^iid no documents were sunnlied alougwith the show cause notice. does siot ixient Q.ecet't^.ncs 3.s tliis issye 'wa.s iicvsr r%xsccl bv tli§ nfit.itioiicr befbre t.hg SDO, It R.DHea.i^ th^t the Detitioxisr w^.s satisfied with the contents of the show ca.i.ise no'tice. Accordmgiv. he 51@d a. det^.iled rsDiv. There is no Derversitv or ilicsaliu'' in l.he imouened ordsr as the same is based on the findines recorded in ?iic eiiciuir^'s It is wel! setfcled Drineiple oi l3-.w th§Hisli Coi.irt.. iii ^xercise of its Dower uiidcr Article 226 ofths C-Qii?t,iti;Atic?ii ot Lidia. Hi3..v loc'k iiito the oerversitv in the Droceedmss. but not oa the deeision. itnless it is baseCi on perversity in finding or 'nd.l.cJftde. tn this caae, Ffrooer uroeediire has becn. foiiowed axid t.he d^cision wa.s taken on the proper reasoning aad fiudiBgs. In view of the abovs aiid for the r^asc^ns stat.cd hc'i'euiabove- tliis netition is dismissed. .Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOM Judge