Authorities must conclude Clause 16(1) proceedings within 30 days and take no coercive steps meanwhile.

The petitioner, Ji Satya Women Self Help Group, operated a Fair Price Shop at Village Pendari, Gram Panchayat Pendari, District Bilaspur.

Following a report by the Food Inspector identifying certain deficiencies, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Takhatpur, issued a show-cause notice dated 17 April 2023 proposing proceedings for cancellation of the petitioner’s licence and prosecution.

The petitioner contended that, without granting a reasonable opportunity to submit a reply or be heard, the SDO passed an undated order in April 2023 suspending the allotment of the Fair Price Shop.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the suspension order and permission to continue operating the shop.

The petitioner also relied on Clause 16(1) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which prescribes a three-month period for concluding such proceedings.

The State did not oppose the relief sought by the petitioner.

Whether the proceedings relating to the alleged deficiencies in the operation of the Fair Price Shop were required to be concluded within the period prescribed under Clause 16(1) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016?

Whether, pending conclusion of those proceedings, coercive action ought to be taken against the petitioner or its Fair Price Shop?

The Court applied Clause 16(1) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which prescribes a three-month period for concluding proceedings concerning alleged irregularities in the operation of a Fair Price Shop.

The Court further applied the procedural principle that proceedings affecting the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop should be concluded within the prescribed period and that coercive steps should not be taken against the petitioner while those proceedings remain pending.

The Court noted that the petitioner had challenged the suspension of the Fair Price Shop and alleged that the order had been passed without adequate opportunity to submit an explanation.

Since Clause 16(1) prescribed a three-month period for completion of the relevant proceedings, and the State did not oppose the petitioner’s submissions, the Court considered it appropriate not to adjudicate the allegations on merits at that stage.

Instead, it directed the concerned SDO (Revenue) to complete the proceedings in accordance with Clause 16(1) within 30 days from receipt of the Court’s order.

To preserve the petitioner’s position pending that determination, the Court restrained the authorities from taking coercive steps until the proceedings were concluded.

It directed Respondent No. 3, the SDO (Revenue), to conclude the proceedings under Clause 16(1) of the Control Order, 2016 within 30 days from receipt of the order.

Until conclusion of those proceedings, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner.