JAI AMBEY MAHILA SWAYAM SAHAYATA SAMUH, SONPUR vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010331622026 2026:CGHC:38481

AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4400 of 2026
AVINASH
SHARMA
1 - Jai Ambey Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Sonpur Through The President
Prabha Sahu, W/o Sandeep Kumar Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sonpur,
Block Ramanujnagar,, District Surajpur (C.G.)
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2026.09.01
17:36:26 +0530
2 - Jai Ambey Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Sonpur, Through The Secretary
Poonam Sahu, W/o Rajiv Sahu, Aged About 30 Years,r/o Village Sonpur, Block
Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Distribution
System Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
4 - The Food Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Shri SS Choubey, GA.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
31/08/2026
1. Instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated
17.08.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur C.G.
whereby the application of petitioner for grant of stay has been dismissed
and order 04.08.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)
Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur C.G., by which, the SDO has attached the

2
fair price shop Sonpur with Fair Price shop Bishunpur which was earlier
being run by the petitioner since 2012, was not stayed.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that the SDO (Revenue) issued a public notice
dated 02.05.2025 whereby the fair price shop situated at Village Sonpur,
Janpat Panchayat Ramanujnagar, was proposed to be allotted to a new Self-
Help Group in place of the petitioners. Prior thereto, a show-cause notice
was issued by the Food Officer to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners
had received an amount of Rs.50/- each from certain ration card holders
towards verification of ration cards and Rs.20/- each towards plastic bags. It
was further alleged that, instead of the President and Secretary, the fair price
shop was being operated by their family members. The petitioners duly
submitted their reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice and specifically
contended that all the ration card holders, on the basis of whose alleged
statements the Food Officer had prepared the report against the petitioners,
had subsequently sworn affidavits categorically stating that there were no
such complaints against the petitioners' Society and that the fair price shop at
Village Sonpur was being properly and correctly operated by the petitioners.
After receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioners, and without properly
considering the affidavits filed by the petitioners as well as the oral
statements made by the concerned ration card holders, the SDO (Revenue),
vide order dated 16.06.2022, mechanically recorded that the reply submitted
by the petitioners was not satisfactory. Consequently, the allotment of the
Government Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur made in favour of the
petitioners was cancelled and the said fair price shop was attached to and
directed to be operated through the Fair Price Shop at Pampapur. Being

3
aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the SDO (Revenue), the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector under Section 18 of the
Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The said
appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Surajpur, vide order dated
13.09.2023(Annexure P/6). In the meantime, during the pendency of the
aforesaid appeal before the Collector, the SDO (Revenue) had also passed
orders for allotment of the said fair price shop in favour of a third party. Being
aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No.
3236/2022 before this Court, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an
order dated 26.07.2022 directing the Collector to decide the interim
application as well as the appeal itself at the earliest, preferably before
creation of any third-party right. On the strength of the order dated
26.07.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3236/2022, the petitioners
continued to operate the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur and, even as on
date, the petitioners have been continuously operating the said Fair Price
Shop since the year 2012. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2023
passed by the Collector, Surajpur, the petitioners preferred an appeal
(Annexure P/8) under Section 18(2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016, before the State Government, which appeal is
still pending consideration. Despite the pendency of the aforesaid appeal
preferred by the petitioners before the State Government, the SDO
(Revenue) once again issued the impugned public notice dated 02.05.2025,
whereby the Fair Price Shop situated at Village Sonpur, Janpat Panchayat
Ramanujnagar, was proposed to be allotted to a new Self-Help Group in
place of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice dated

4
02.05.2025 issued by the SDO (Revenue), the petitioners preferred W.P.(C)
No. 2632/2025 before this Court, wherein this Court was pleased to stay the
effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 02.05.2025 vide order
dated 29.05.2025. Subsequently, by efflux of time and owing to the change in
jurisdiction under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control)
Order, 2016, the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the State
Government came to be transferred for adjudication before the
Commissioner, Surguja Division. The Commissioner, Surguja Division,
without proper application of mind and without appreciating the contentions
raised by the petitioners and, in particular, in the absence of the complete
records of the case, has passed the impugned order dated 17.08.2026
(Annexure P/1) , whereby the petitioners' application for grant of stay has
been dismissed, while the main appeal has been kept pending for further
hearing. In the meantime, despite having complete knowledge of the facts
and circumstances of the case and also of the orders passed by this Court,
the SDO, Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.), has, most illegally,
arbitrarily and in utter disregard of the subsisting orders of this Court,
attached the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur, which was being operated by
the petitioners, with the Fair Price Shop situated at Bishnupur vide order
dated 04.08.2026 (Annexure P/2).
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the appeal pending before the
Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, application of petitioner for grant
of stay has been summarily rejected without even calling the records and
without considering the fact that petitioner was running the Fair Price Shop in
question since 2012.

5
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure contemplated
under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016,
particularly Clause 16 thereof, mandates a proper and fair enquiry before any
adverse action such as cancellation of the authority letter of a Fair Price
Shop or forfeiture of the security amount is taken against the Fair Price
Shopkeeper. He submits that in the instant case, the procedure as envisaged
under Control Order, 2016 has not been followed.
5. Learned State counsel submits that from the perusal of petition, it appears
that the petitioner is still running the Fair Price Shop, however, since
application of petitioner for grant of stay has been rejected by the
Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, as such, petitoner is not entitled
for any relief when even otherwise, the original appeal is still pending before
the concerned Comissioner.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed
with the petition carefully.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of Clause 16 of
the Control Order, 2016, which deals with imposition of penalty. The relevant
portion thereof reads as under:-
16. Penalty. - (1) If shopkeeper contravenes any provision
of agreement, his shop shall be liable for suspension or
cancellation by authorized officer for allotment of Fair Price
shop.
(2) During inspection of shop, if any irregularity found then
without prejudice to any action the whole or part of amount
deposited by shopkeeper as security, shall be forfeited in
favour of the State.
(3) Before cancellation of authority letter of Fair Price Shop

6
or forfeiture of whole or part of security, Food Controller or
Food Officer of district, Sub-Divisional Officer of sub-division
shall issue show cause notice and after giving him
appropriate opportunity of hearing decision shall be made.
This action shall be completed within a month from
issuance of show cause notice.
(4) The inspection of Fair Price Shop and other agencies
engaged in supply and distribution of essential,commodities
under public distribution system shall be done by the
officers mentioned in the sub-rule (2) of rule 13 of this order.
If irregularities found against Fair Price Shop run by
cooperative societies, then inspecting officer communicate it
to Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
societies, who will send his report within 15 days to officer
designated for allotment of Fair Price Shop. If the said
Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies
does not submit his report within 15 days then it will be
presumed that the consent of Deputy Registrar/Assistant
Registrar, Cooperative societies is favourable and proposed
action can be completed.
(5) If any person, society or group contravenes any
provisions of this Order, he shall be liable to punishment
under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. In case of
cooperative societies, Gram Panchayat or other institution
the prosecution may be started on the approval of Collector
but in such cases the action shall not be restricted to
salesman of Fair Price Shop only it can be extended to
President and executive officers of society and other
institutions and Sarpanch, Secretary of Panchayat or Gram
Panchayat.
(6) If there is prima-facie evidence that any individual is
operating a shop as a proxy/"benami" shop keeper or de-
facto owner by using the self-help groups, primary credit

7
societies, forest protection committees, other credit
societies or Gram Panchayat, she/he will be prosecuted
under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as if
she/he were running the shop.”
8. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the law particularly considering
Sub-clause (3) of Clause 16, there is a clear indication that before
cancellation of the authority letter of a fair price shop, an appropriate
opportunity of being heard shall be provided.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raghunath Sharma vs. State of
Haryana and Another {2025 SCC OnLine 1148} held the following in
paragraph 9.3.4:-
“9.3.4 The law, therefore, is no longer res integra. The
exception to this position has been reorganized in State of
Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar {(2011) 14 SCC 770}
in the following terms:
"46. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction
or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the
order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of
being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was
obtained by abuse of the process of court which would
really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent
powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason
that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and
the provisions of Section 362 CrPC would not operate, In
such an eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to
the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of
recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the
judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has
to establish that it was not at fault.…"

8
The 'exceptions' of a) the violation of audi alteram partem;
and b) abuse of process of law which would affect the
jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter and, in such
cases the exercise of the inherent powers under the code
has been approved by a Bench of three Judges in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey {(2021)
14 SCC 683} .These aren't the circumstances of the present
case.”
10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and
Others v. Ambay Cements and Another, {(2005) 1 SCC 368} held the
following in paragraph 26:-
26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is
to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that
failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe
consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is
the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute
provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be
done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It
is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is
penal in character, it must be strictly construed and
followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of
obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-
compliance with the same must result in cancelling the
concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent
herein.”

11. The aforesaid principle was further reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Mahendra Singh {2022 SCC
OnLine SC 909} in paragraph 15 & 16, which reads as under:-
15. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a judgment reported
as Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad {(1999) 8 SCC

9
266}, held as under:
“17………………..It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a
statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner,
then it has to be done in that manner and in no other
manner. (See with advantage : Nazir Ahmad v. King
Emperor [(1935-36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)], Rao
Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 :
1954 SCR 1098], State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964
SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57].) An election petition under the
rules could only have been presented in the open court up to
16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the
manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or
the Bench as the case may be to save the period of
limitation. That, however, was not done…………….”
16. The said principle has been followed by this Court in
Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra
Pradesh {(2015) 13 SCC 722} wherein this Court held as
under:
“14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a
particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be
done in the same manner following the provisions of law,
without deviating from the prescribed procedure…………. ”
12. In the matter of OPTO Circuits (India) Ltd. v. Axis Bank and Others, {(2021) 6
SCC 707 }, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 14 as under:-
“14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a
statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular
manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in
no other manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the
presentation of an election petition, as per the procedure
prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court
had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what

10
would be a valid presentation of an election petition in
Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad [Chandra Kishore
Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, (1999) 8 SCC 266] and in the
course of consideration observed as hereunder : (SCC p.
273, para 17)
“17. … It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute
provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then
it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.”
Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in
the instant case, though the authorised officer is vested with
sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a
procedure laid down under the statute. As such the power is
to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which it would
fall foul of the requirement of complying with due process
under law. We have found fault with the authorised officer
and declared the action bad only insofar as not following the
legal requirement before and after freezing the account.
This shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the
merit of the allegation or any other aspect relating to the
matter and the action initiated against the appellant and its
Directors which is a matter to be taken note of in
appropriate proceedings if at all any issue is raised by the
aggrieved party.”
13.
Though during the course of hearing, contention has not been raised by
counsel for the petitioner with regard to due opportunity of hearing being
provided to the petitioner, however, this Court cannot turn its back on the
error apparent on the face of record. In the present case, although a show-
cause notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner, the material
placed on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner had specifically
relied upon affidavits of the concerned ration card holders disputing the

11
allegations which formed the basis of the action against the petitioner. The
petitioner also claims to have placed other material in support of its defence.
14.
However, from the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), it appears that the petitioner's reply was rejected by
recording, in a rather summary manner, that the same was not satisfactory.
There is no apparent consideration of the specific defence raised by the
petitioner which suggests that that the procedure as envisaged under the
Control Order, 2016 has not been followed.
15.It is true that the present writ petition primarily challenges the subsequent
order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the Commissioner rejecting the
petitioner's application for interim relief. However, this Court, while exercising
its writ jurisdiction, cannot ignore an apparent violation of the mandatory
procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2016, particularly when the
consequence of such action is cancellation of the Fair Price Shop which the
petitioner claims to have been operating since 2012.
16. The Commissioner, while considering the application for interim relief, was
required to consider the relevant records and the effect of the pending
substantive appeal. The rejection of the application for stay, without the
complete records being before the Commissioner, particularly when the
petitioner had raised a specific grievance regarding non-compliance with the
procedure prescribed under Clause 16 of the Control Order, 2016, cannot be
sustained. It goes without saying that the very intention and an object behind
sub-clause (3) of Clause 16 of the Order, 2016, for providing an opportunity
of hearing is that the aggrieved person should not be as if the proceedings

12
have been drawn without considering any of his submissions, explanation or
justification that he has in respect of the specific allegation.
17. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of
the considered view that instead of permitting the matter to proceed further
on the basis of the order dated 16.06.2022, the matter deserves to be
remitted to the competent authority for conducting a fresh enquiry in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2016.
18. Accordingly, the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the SDO (Revenue),
Surajpur District Surajpur, C.G., the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the
Additional Collector, Surajpur, as well as the subsequent proceedings before
the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, arising out of the said order,
are hereby set aside/quashed.
19.The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur, District Surajpur, is directed
to conduct a fresh enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner in
accordance with Clause 16 of the Control Order, 2016. The petitioner shall
be furnished with the relevant material relied upon against it and shall be
afforded adequate and effective opportunity to submit its explanation and
produce supporting material, including the affidavits/statements relied upon
by it. Thereafter, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking
order strictly in accordance with law.
20. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order as mandated in Control Order, 2016.

13
21.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the allegations against the petitioner, and the competent authority shall
take an independent decision on the basis of the material available on record
and in accordance with law.
22. Since it has been submitted by both sides that the petitioner is presently
operating the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur, and keeping in view the
direction for fresh enquiry, it is directed that till completion of the aforesaid
enquiry and passing of a fresh order by the competent authority, the
petitioner shall be permitted to operate the Fair Price Shop at Village Sonpur
in accordance with the applicable rules and conditions.
23.Consequently, the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, whereby the Fair Price
Shop at Village Sonpur was attached with the Fair Price Shop at Bishnupur,
shall remain inoperative till completion of the aforesaid enquiry and passing
of the fresh order.
24. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge


Avinash