1 2025:CGHC:39692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4239 of 2025 Sharda Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Lendhra Through Its Salesman Of (Govt. Fair Price Shop Lendhra I.D. No. 412003044) Santosh Kumar Tondon S/o Late Shri Sitaram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village- Lendhra (Chhote), 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 - Meera Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Mudwabhata Id No. 412003026, Through Its President, Village- Mudwabhata, Tah. Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following relief: 2 “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner’s case. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 3 for non-compliance of the Rules 16(3) of C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the Respondent no. 3 to consider the reply of the petitioner and grant proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass afresh order in accordance with law. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery order/notice dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 3 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh whereby the recovery of amount of Rs. 23,71,m947/- has been issued to the petitioner without 3 complying the provision of Rules 16(3) of C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016. The opportunity of being heard and making defence, has not been provided to the petitioner and the recovery order has been issued, which is illegal and against the law. Therefore, he prays for quashment of the 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. 23,71,947/- and directed him that explanation shall be given within 7 days from the date of issuance of notification. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a detailed 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. 22,73,186/-, and in notice dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/1), the shortage of food grains amounting to Rs. 23,71,947/-. Therefore, prima facie there is difference of ninty eight thousand seven hundred and sixty one rupees shown in the records. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already filed reply 4 before the respondent no. 3 on 18.07.2025 and the matter is pending before the SDO(R) and till date there is no final 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 decides his grievance as per the provision of Order 16(3) of the C.G. 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 Madhurima