Wa i/ EN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIGN Ho. 8£§ {3F 2005 ‘ PETXTIONER: 3y / Ekta Mahila Prathmik Sahkari O Samiti, Rumgara, District Korba, through its Manager Shri Anuj Singh, aged about 27 years, son of Shri $.13, Singh, r€sid6nt of Rumgara Ward. N032, Balco, District Korba. Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 9/ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the. Secretary, DEpartment 0f Food Civil Supplies 8r, Consunmr Pro'tcct'ion, D.K.S. B‘hawan, Mantralya, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Tha Cellector (Food Division), District Korba, Chhattisgarhr Th6 Food OffiCér, Departmcnt of Food Civil Supplias an Consumer Protection, Korha. Chhattisgarh, Shri A.K. Katakwar, Food In3pector, Dopartmcnt of Food Civil Supplies 6r. Consumor Protection, Korba, Chhattisgarh, \ \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE I CéNSTETUTION 9F INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUB WRIT PETlTlON NO. 853 OF 2005 PETITIONER Ekta Ma'hila Prathmik Sahkari Samiti Rumgara Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticie 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Ms. Sharmiia Singhai, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Neeikanth Malviya‘ Advocate for therespondent No4. RESPONDENTS ORDER (Passed on 20‘“ day or Jury, 2010) 1. The allotment of Fair‘Pn‘ce Shop (for short “FPS") in dispute was made on 1/5/2002 (Annexure P—3). Thereafter, inspection of the shop was done on 1/10/2004 by the Food Inspector, Korba. On inspection, several irregularities were found as aforesaid. A panchanama was prepared in presence of three witnesses on 1/1 0/2004 (Annexure P—4). Thereafter, a report was sent by the Food inspector to the Collector (Food Department) on 6/10/2004 (Annexure P-5). On the basis of the report, the allotment of FPS shop to the petitioner was suspended and it was ailotted to Shantinagar Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar, Ward N032 in accordance with Para 16 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Controi) Order, 2004 (for short “the Order, 2004”). 2. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4/1 1/2004 (Annexure Pv7). The petitioner submitted its reply dated — Nil (Annexure P—9). After considering repiy of the petitioner, the impugned order dated.3/2/2005 was passed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is wrong to say that owner of the shop was not present on the date of inspection is contrdicted by the statement of the wner Shri Anuj a o Singh herein he has clearly stated that during inspection of the , w sop on 1/10/2004 by the rpondent No.4, the hop was found h es s do o sed. Thereafter, he was summned and the'shop was opened at 11:15 a.m. and on inspection, everai irregularities ere found. Shri s w Anuj Sinh has admitted all the harges in his statement dated g c 1/10/2004 11:35 a.m. Thus, the contention of the petitioner tha no at t opportunity of hearing was afforded, despite the fact that the notie c was issued on /11/2004 and reply was filed by the petitione is 4 r without any basis nd deserves to be rejcted. a e Befo passing the imugned rder, the authorities have complied re p o with basic principles of nural justice as weil as statuory procedure at t as laid down in sub para (3) of para 16 of the Order, 2004. There is merit in the case. Hover, on the aspect that the sop as no we h w allotted o Shantinagar Prathmik Sahkar Upbhokta Bhand, it was t i ar also not impleaded a necessary party spondent. as re Wit regard to non—joinder of necesary parties, the‘Supreme Court h s in dt Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Membe oard of Revnue, Bihar and anther1, observed as under: Ui r B e o “(7) To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled; it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, without going into the merits of the case the petition deserves to be dismissed for want of impleadment of necessary party also, as no relief can be granted in ‘1 AIR 1963 SC 786 favour of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to Shantinagar Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar‘ The petitioner had ample opportunity till date to impiead necessary party, however, no step was taken by the petitioner to do the needfui during pendency of the petition. Thus, in View of the above, i do not find any justification to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- rsatish K. Agnihotrii Ashok/Gowri Judge . w x r.