1 2026:CGHC:22796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1936 of 2026 1 - Gulab Ram S/o Hiru Ram Aged About 45 Years Salesman Of Faire Price Shop Of Village Panchayat Chirai, R/o Village Chirai, P.S. And Tahsil Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector (Food Department) Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Tahsildar Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Food Inspector Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... 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. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/05/2026 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 09.4.2026 issued by the respondent no.4 ΑΝΝΕXURE 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 petition is being filed against the impugned recovery order dated 09.04.2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/1), 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. 1,30,130.99/- on or before 13.04.2026. The said recovery order has been issued without serving any notice upon the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that Respondent No. 3 has neither passed any order 3 imposing penalty nor any order directing recovery of the aforesaid amount against the petitioner under Clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. In absence of any adjudication or determination by the competent authority, the direct issuance of the recovery order by the Tahsildar is wholly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and without following the due procedure prescribed under law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is merely working as a salesman at the Fair Price Shop of Gram Panchayat Chirai. The said Fair Price Shop was allotted to Gram Panchayat Chirai, which is the operating agency of the shop. Despite the same, the impugned recovery order has been issued personally against the petitioner, who is only a salesman of the shop, which action is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that no notice whatsoever was issued by Respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, nor was any order imposing penalty or directing recovery ever passed against him. However, all of a sudden, the impugned recovery order has been issued against the petitioner without any prior notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions contained under Clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that without initiating or conducting any proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution 4 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 the concerned operating agency; learned counsel further submits that liberty may be granted to the respondent authorities to initiate 5 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. Having consciously considered submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that prior to issuance of the RRC notice, no proceedings as contemplated under law were initiated or concluded. In absence of any determination and fixation of liability, the impugned RRC notice has been issued merely on the ground of deficiency of grains in the fair price shop. The fair price shop had been allotted to the concerned Gram Panchayat Secretary/agency, whereas the present petitioner was only working as a salesman therein. Therefore, unless and until liability is duly established in proceedings initiated under the Control Order, 2016, no recovery notice can legally be issued against any person. 7. 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 6 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 opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties before passing any final order. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge