1 2026:CGHC:22162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2358 of 2026 1 - Ramkumar Paikra S/o Baliram Paikra Aged About 37 Years Salesman Of Faire Price Shop Of Village Panchayat Kothali R/o Village Kothali Village Panchayat Kothli P.S. And Tehsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector (Food Department) Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Shankargarh District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. 4 - Tahsildar Shankargarh District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. 5 - Food Inspector Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. and Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned recovery order dated 9.4.2026 issued by the respondent no.4 ANNEXURE P/1. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case..” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned recovery order dated 09.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 4 purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 146 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,97,066.96/- on or before 13.04.2026 without issuance of any prior notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby resulting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice; it is submitted that respondent No. 3 has neither passed any order imposing penalty nor any adjudicatory order determining liability or directing recovery under Clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 against the petitioner, 3 and despite absence of any such determination, respondent No. 4 has directly initiated recovery proceedings through the impugned order, which action is wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the prescribed statutory procedure; it is further submitted that the petitioner was merely working as a salesman at the Fair Price Shop of Gram Panchayat Kothali and the said Fair Price Shop had in fact been allotted to Gram Panchayat Kothali, which was the actual operating agency responsible for management and operation of the shop, however, despite the same, the impugned recovery proceedings have been initiated directly against the petitioner-salesman alone without conducting any enquiry against the operating agency; according to the petitioner, no show cause notice was ever issued to him by respondent No. 3, nor was any enquiry conducted or any order imposing recovery or liability passed against him prior to issuance of the impugned recovery order, and all of a sudden the petitioner has been saddled with liability by issuance of the impugned RRC/recovery order without following due process of law and without granting any opportunity of hearing, which action is not only arbitrary and contrary to law but also violative of the principles of natural justice and in clear contravention of Clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and therefore the impugned recovery proceedings deserve to be quashed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that 4 without initiating or conducting any proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, the respondent authorities have directly proceeded against the petitioner in a wholly arbitrary and illegal manner; it is further submitted that the petitioner, who was merely working as a salesman of the Fair Price Shop, has suddenly been served with a Recovery Certificate (RRC) notice issued by the concerned Tahsildar alleging misappropriation/shortage of food grains relating to the Fair Price Shop and directing the petitioner to deposit the amount allegedly found deficient during inspection or verification proceedings; learned counsel submits that no show cause notice, enquiry proceedings, or adjudication determining liability has ever been conducted against the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned recovery notice, and therefore the action of the respondent authorities in fastening liability upon the petitioner and initiating recovery proceedings without following due process of law is violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the statutory procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2016. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on instructions, submits that physical verification of the stock relating to the concerned Fair Price Shop has already been conducted by the competent authorities and notices have also been issued in relation thereto; however, no formal proceedings determining liability or recovery have yet been initiated against the petitioner or 5 the concerned operating agency; learned counsel further submits that liberty may be granted to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioner as well as the concerned agency to whom the Fair Price Shop had been allotted, and thereafter, upon conducting a proper enquiry and affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders with regard to the alleged shortage/deficit of food grains found at the concerned Fair Price Shop. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the effect and operation of the impugned recovery proceedings/RRC notice for the present; however, the concerned revenue and competent authorities are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioner as well as all other persons concerned with the operation and management of the Fair Price Shop, including the agency to whom the licence for running the Fair Price Shop had been allotted, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and thereafter to conduct a proper enquiry by following due process of law and by affording adequate 6 opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties before passing any final order. 7. 7. The parties concerned shall duly cooperate with and assist the competent authorities during the course of the enquiry proceedings, and till culmination of the said proceedings, the effect and operation of the Recovery Certificate (RRC) notice shall remain stayed. 8. It is, however, made clear that upon conclusion of the enquiry, the concerned State authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for recovery of the amount, if any, found due and recoverable from the persons held responsible. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat