1 2026:CGHC:4849-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 55 of 2026 1 - Dilip Kumar Yadav S/o Shankar Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o- House No.- 30, Shantipara And Tehsil- Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2- Govind Prashad S/O- Sitaram Behra, Aged About 36 years R/O-Ward No.-09, Sodipara, BaboliDistrict-Chhattisgarh Surguja, ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Protection Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Surguja District- Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - District Food Officer District Surguja Chhattisgarh 5 - District Marketing Officer District Surguja Chhattisgarh 6 - Station House Officer Police Station Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.30 19:05:56 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following relief(s):- "10.1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2026 issued by the District Food Officer, Surguja, whereby direction was given to lodge an FIR against the present Petitioners, being illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law; 10.2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the consequential FIR, if any, registered pursuant to the impugned order dated 18.01.2026 at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja, against the Petitioners; 10.3. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive action against the Petitioners pursuant to the impugned order and consequential criminal proceedings; 10.4. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to conduct a fresh, fair and scientific physical verification of the stock at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Kundikala, 3 District Surguja, after proper counting and weighing of the stock and after granting due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners; 10.5. Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice." 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners were working as Society Manager (Petitioner No.1) and Computer Operator (Petitioner No.2) at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Kundikala, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. On 18.01.2025, a joint inspection was conducted at the said centre by the District Food Officer, District Marketing Officer, and Nodal Officer, State Warehouse, during which a physical verification of stock was allegedly carried out. On the basis of online records, it was claimed that there was a shortage of 4201 bags of rice, equivalent to 1680.4 quintals, and a Panchanama was prepared accordingly (Annexure P- 2). The said inspection was conducted in a casual, mechanical, and arbitrary manner, without adopting any scientific or systematic method of counting or verification, and despite the fact that the entire stock was physically available at the Procurement Centre. The calculation slip prepared during the inspection itself disclosed glaring arithmetical errors, including discrepancies of 1920 bags at Serial No.3 and 165 bags at Serial No.4, which alone accounted for a substantial part of the alleged shortage (Annexure P-3). Nevertheless, solely on the basis of this defective and erroneous verification, the District Food Officer, Surguja, issued the impugned order dated 18.01.2026, directing registration of an FIR against the 4 petitioners, without any preliminary inquiry or opportunity of explanation, giving rise to the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that pursuant to the impugned order dated 18.01.2026 passed by the District Food Officer, Surguja, the FIR has already been registered against the petitioners at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja, and therefore, the cause of action for challenging the impugned order no longer survives. In view of the said subsequent development, learned counsel seeks permission of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law by challenging the said FIR and all consequential proceedings. 5. Learned State Counsel formally opposes the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the present writ petition, having been rendered infructuous by registration of the FIR pursuant to the impugned order dated 18.01.2026, does not warrant any adjudication on merits. It is submitted that once the FIR has already been registered in accordance with law, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is to challenge the same before the competent forum as per settled legal position. Learned State Counsel further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, as liberty to assail the FIR in accordance with law can always be granted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn, without entering into the merits of the matter. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the documents, annexures, and records placed on file. 7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the impugned order dated 18.01.2026 passed by the District Food Officer, Surguja, an FIR has already been registered against the petitioners at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja. In view of the said subsequent development, the cause of action for adjudicating the validity of the impugned order does not survive for consideration in the present writ petition. Since learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law by challenging the said FIR and all consequential proceedings, and learned State Counsel has no objection to the same, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. 8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the legality of the FIR, which shall be considered independently by the competent forum in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved