1 2025:CGHC:37122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3904 of 2025 1 - Sulochna Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Singhanpur Through Its Salesman Of (Govt. Fair Price Shop Singhanpur I.D. No. 412003011) Santosh Kumar Kurre S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village - Singhanpur, Tah. Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bhilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Food Branch), Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - The Food Inspector, Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Saumya Mahila Swa-Sahayta Samuh Kosir Id No. 412003012 Through Its President, Village Kosir Tah. Ulkhar-Kosir, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ---Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 30/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following relief:- Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.31 11:12:27 +0530 2 “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner and call for the records pertaining to the present case. (ii) That this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned recovery order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 for non compliance of the Rules 16(3) of CG Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. (iii) That this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to grant permission to the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop Singhanpur ID 412003011 as the order of cancellation of Fair Price Shop has been set aside by this Hon’ble Court. (iv) That any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice along with the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery order/notice dated 08.07.2025 (ΑΝΝΕXURE P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh whereby the recovery order has been issued to the petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs. 28,82,526/- for shortage of Rice, Sugar, and Salt from the Govt. Fair Price Shop Singhanpur, on the basis of inspection report of Food Inspector dated 02.09.2024. The recovery order has been issued without complying the provision of Order 16(3) of Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. The opportunity of being heard for making defence, has not been provided to the petitioner and the recovery order, is illegal and against the law. Therefore he prays for quashment of the 3 impugned recovery order dated 08.07.2025. 3. Learned State Counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. From perusal of records it transpires that the concerned SDO (R ) has issued recovery notice to the petitioner on 08.07.2025 for recovery of amount of Rs. 28,82,526/- and directed him that explanation shall be given with 7 days from the date of issuance of notification. In this regard, the petitioner submitted detail reply of the show cause notice to the respondent No. 3 which is still pending consideration. However, as per Annexure P/3, earlier the respondent No. 3 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and mentioned that as per inspection report of Food Inspector Sarangarh, there are shortage of food grains amounting to Rs. 26,40,286/-, and in notice dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), the shortage of food grains amounting to Rs. 28,82,526/- Therefore, prima facie there is difference of two lakhs shown in the records. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already filed reply before the respondent No. 3 on 18.09.2025 and the matter is pending before the SDO(R ) and till date there is no final 4 order has been passed against the petitioner, therefore I am not inclined to entertain this petition. If the petitioner raises his grievance before the respondent No. 3 SDO(R ) and the respondent No. 3 decides his grievance as per the provision of Order 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti