IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. / 2005 PETITIONER ^ .^'^v ^y^ ' «<-e''^-" RESPONDENTS ^'""' ~""~^r:^, ^" ^v €^:. /-"""*^~:%,'%, Saraswati Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh, a Registered Society under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 haying its RegKriralion /'/^ACI.-^)"y''"-.--''''"' .I!?':l:7/^r6l..t.^ro^gh.?ts.presi.den.t' ?mL: ^:^y 4-l^y Vimla Jain W/o Sunil Jain, Aged about 45 years; R/o Katora Talab, Raipur Hdving Fair Price Shop at Ward No.34/2, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Versus ^ 2; 3) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Food Branch Raipur, District: Raipur (C.O.) The Food Controller, Raipur District-Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION^UNDERAR'nCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TInwww^1ff^aifftnipi \3-ocT"qraicCT, yTll't-l^ld, .ui.p.^G..s^...l.o.ST.. sn^siviv (^fg^) 3II^<TWlft-li<b cCT3Ilt?TSOTiW ?^?rr<R^TfeT3n^?T 12^^005— Shri P. Diwakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Since this writ petition which was allotted to the 21-7-2005, on account of violal System (Controt) Order, 2004[ agreement entered into AuthorHy, it is being disposed of[ ! have heard Shri P. petitioner. Learned Senior Counsell it is said that inspection of 17 th®tnspecting Authority noticed| shops as well as fair price di4| other clauses of Order, 2004 vioiatfon of the agreement was always fine is imposed where^! been taken. It was not physic^ one day and it was done with) therefore, action of respond^i petitioners. Therefore, order be| Clause-18 of the said tte word 'suspension' has beefi tni<<ln<Ili iiioT^'fei^l •(Rt'l-dl't ^srt^Tsn^sT Senjor Advocata with Shri P.R. Patankar, Golrt petitio|ier befateen respond^nts ol-der >(rt. Advocate for the State/respondents. 1'elates to suspension of fair price shop, only one month back vide order dated jon of some clauses of Public Distribution and also violation of conditions of the the petitioner and the Licencing at the admission stage itself. Diwakar, tearned Senior Counset for the for the petitioner submitted that in one day ihops was carried out. During inspection, |that certain registers were not found in the (ptay notice board was not displayed and |were not being complied with, and atso Inoticed. Normally forsuch minor violatlon js, in the present case, drastic action has ^lly possible to inspect so many shops in |n one month from opening of the shops, is arbitrary and too harsh to the |stayed. provides for an appeal. Even though used. But, from perusal of the said order, 'ifS XI-HC-78 dT^I ^WIri^, yal<<i*is, Romyt 3n^?iVFS (^rfg^) SII^STOTRi-O"* asiT3I1^?Trii*li* <niti[n<I1i *iiinT^'fei<II '(ful'^l't ^aiKliairtsT Barve accordaihce the ianguage shows that it is considered opinion, the order in qi Therefore, the petitioner s Qovernment, as it is evident frorr Food Controller has passed the Coltector, within a period of 7 da^ should decide the appeai within receipt of the appeat in hearing to the petitioner. In the meantime, tili the not be allotted to any other party. With the direction aforesaic of. in view of ihis ordor, No.6923/2005 also stand disposec Parties are entitled for certifi aimost cancellation, as such in my |estion is appealable. hould file^an appeal before the State impugned order Annexure-P/3 that the said order as per the orders of the ^ from today and the Steite Government a period of 1 month from the date of with law after giving opportunity of ap|>eat is decided, shop in quesfion should the above writ petition stands disposed IUI.C(V.)P. No.3088/2005 and i.A. lof. ed copy of this order. Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 1