'etitioner HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: WritPetition No. 3000 of200i President Adarsh Mahiia Swayam Sahayata Samuh Silota, Through- Smt. Maiti Devi, W/b. Shri Rambilas, Viilage Panchayat of Silota Block Pratppur, Dist. Sarguia, ^tF'" ^.SSi 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. 2) Sub-Divisionai Officer (R) Pratappur, Sarguja, CG. 5) The Collector (Food), Pratappur, Sarguja, CG. ..'-Sf.'—.'-S?-;^ •it Petition under Articie 228/227 ofthe Constitution of India) S: Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Aanihotri Shri D N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Pane! Lawyer for the State. (Passed on 23rd Aprii, 2007) 3y this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 5-7-2005 (Annexure P/1), whereby aiiotment of Fair Price Shop vide order dated 22-7-2004 (Annexure P/2) was canceiled. 2. The indisputab!e facts, in nutsheil, are that the petitioner Is a seif hslp group nameiy Adarsh Mahiia Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Silota. The petitioner is., president of the said group. The said group was granted aliotment of Fair Price Shoo vide order dated 22-7-2004 (Annexure P/2) in village Siiota, Block Pratappur, District Sarguja. - .<;--'-t"'?-&s:-.:**t' i^.1:-S :"s: S?'S^'^«•*'' t •2- '^ 3. The only contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Clause 16 (3) of the Public Distribution System (Controi) Order 2004 (for short, "the Order 2004) cleariy provides that before canceilation of authority letter of Fair Price Shop or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or Food Officer of disfrict, Sub Divisional Officer ofsub division, shal) issue show-cause notlce and after giving him appropriate opportunity of hearing^decision shai! be made. No opportunity of hearing was affordsd as per provisions of the Order, 4. It is admjtted case of both the parties thai before passing the impugned order i.e., canceliation of authority letter of Fair Price Shop, neither show cause notice nor proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Thus, there is admitted infraction of the statutory provision as contained in Clause 1 S (3) of the Order 2004. 5. !n visw of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 5-7-2005 (Annexure P/1) is set aside and the petition is aiiowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge tt