1 2026:CGHC:24541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2867 of 2026 Shri Govind Ram Yadav S/o- Shri Paramanand Yadav, Aged About 52 Years Working As In- Charge Assistant Society Manager, Bimda, Registration No. 129, Resident Of Village Ludeg, Tehsil Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector (Food Branch), District- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant Commissioner, Co-Operatives And Assistant Registrar Co- Opertive Societies, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Registrar, Co- Operative Societies, Sarguja Division, Ambilapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 5 - Authorized Officer/ President, Aadim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Kotba, Registration No. 93, Block Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 18.06.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality, validity YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.18 18:11:03 +0530 2 and propriety of the show cause notice dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to explain regarding the alleged shortage of 7,551 bags (3,020.40 quintals) of paddy detected during physical verification conducted at the procurement centre, Kotba. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the physical verifications and impugned notices of Kotba paddy center. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No. 2 to the extent it penalizes or attaches liability to the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any coercive or ex-parte legal actions against the petitioner in connection with the Kotba procurement accounts. 10.4 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially posted as Manager at the Kotba Procurement Centre; however, he was relieved from the said centre on 22.01.2026 and 3 was sent back to his parent society. It is submitted that thereafter the charge of the procurement centre was duly handed over and the petitioner ceased to have any administrative or financial control over the affairs of the said centre. It is further submitted that on the basis of certain allegations, an order dated 06.02.2026 was issued directing the petitioner to coordinate and supervise the lifting of paddy at the Kotba centre. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred proceedings before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sarguja Division. The Joint Registrar, after taking cognizance of the matter, passed an interim order staying the operation and effect of the order dated 06.02.2026. According to learned counsel, the said interim order was operative and binding upon all concerned authorities. 3. Learned counsel would submit that despite the existence of the aforesaid stay order, respondent No.2 has proceeded to issue the impugned show cause notice dated 08.05.2026 fastening liability upon the petitioner for the alleged shortage of paddy. It is argued that once the competent authority, namely the Joint Registrar, had stayed the order on the basis of which responsibility was sought to be attached to the petitioner, there was no justification for the respondent authorities to again initiate proceedings against him on the same set of allegations. It is contended that the impugned notice has been issued in complete disregard of the interim protection granted by the Joint Registrar and, therefore, the same suffers from arbitrariness and non-application of mind. 4 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the impugned notice is merely a show cause notice and no adverse order has yet been passed against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has an adequate opportunity to place all relevant facts and documents before the competent authority. Learned State counsel further submits that the issue relating to shortage of paddy requires factual examination with regard to the period during which the alleged shortage occurred, the responsibility of the officers concerned and the effect of the orders passed by the competent authorities from time to time. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner may be relegated to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent authority, where all factual and legal issues can be effectively considered and adjudicated. 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, this Court finds that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the issuance of the impugned show cause notice on the ground that the same has been issued notwithstanding the interim order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The grievance raised by the petitioner involves consideration of factual aspects relating to the petitioner's tenure, the date of handing over of charge, the effect of 5 the interim order passed by the Joint Registrar and the extent of liability, if any, that can be attributed to the petitioner. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid issues would be appropriately examined by the Collector, Jashpur, who is competent to consider the petitioner's grievance and take a decision after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the petitioner is directed to approach the Collector, Jashpur by submitting a detailed representation/application along with all relevant documents, including copies of the order passed by the Joint Registrar and other supporting material, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. In the event such an application is submitted within the aforesaid period, the Collector, Jashpur shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all affected parties. The Collector shall specifically examine the effect of the interim order passed by the Joint Registrar and the petitioner's contention regarding his relieving from the Kotba Procurement Centre prior to the alleged detection of shortage. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 30 days from the date of submission of the representation. 6 10. Till the petitioner's representation is considered and decided by the Collector, Jashpur, and for a period of thirty (30) days thereafter, whichever is earlier, the operation and effect of the impugned show cause notice dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it concerns the petitioner, shall remain kept in abeyance. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all questions are left open to be considered by the Collector in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh