1 CGHC010292612023 2026:CGHC:31326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4155 of 2023 1 - Aruna Kashyap W/o Kishor Kumar Aged About 41 Years R/o Godhna, Village Kuriyari, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kishor Kashyap S/o Chhotelal Aged About 47 Years R/o Godhna, Village Kuriyari, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Corporation, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Food And Civil Supplies Corporation, Block-02, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 4 - Food Officer Nawagarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tahsildar Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Shyam Kumar, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Dr. Arham Siddui, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondent authorities pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned show cause notice dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No. 5, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned memo of recovery dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P-6) issued by respondent No. 6, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other 3 relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no. 1, Basanti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, was allotted the Fair Price Shop situated at Village Kuriyari and had been operating the same continuously from the year 2005 to 2017. During the said period, the petitioner- Samuh discharged its responsibilities in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. However, on the basis of a false and baseless complaint, and without conducting any enquiry or affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, the operation of the Fair Price Shop was suspended. Thereafter, the shop was allotted to another self-help group, namely Jai Mahamaya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, which has been operating the Fair Price Shop since the year 2018. Thereafter, after an unexplained lapse of nearly four years, Respondent No. 3 issued an impugned show- cause notice dated 09.02.2022 alleging that the petitioner-Samuh had failed to hand over certain food grains to the newly allotted Samuh at the time of transfer of the Fair Price Shop. The petitioners submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations and specifically contended that the entire stock of food grains was available at the shop at the time of handing over charge. The petitioners further pointed out that the allegations were raised after an inordinate delay of four years from the date on which the newly allotted Samuh had taken over the operation of the Fair Price Shop, rendering the allegations wholly arbitrary and 4 unsustainable. Despite the petitioners' reply, the respondents, without conducting any enquiry, verifying the factual position, or affording the petitioners any opportunity of hearing, proceeded to issue the impugned memo dated 28.07.2023, thereby fastening liability upon the petitioners in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal issuance of the impugned show-cause notice dated 09.02.2022 and the consequential memo dated 28.07.2023, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 09.02.2022 and the consequential Memorandum of Recovery dated 28.07.2023 are arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner Basanti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh operated the Fair Price Shop of Village Kuriyari from 2005 to 2017. Pursuant to an anonymous complaint, the Tahsildar, Nawagarh conducted an enquiry and physical verification of the shop and categorically found no irregularity. Nevertheless, the petitioners' allotment was cancelled without conducting any departmental enquiry or affording an adequate opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that after cancellation of the petitioners' allotment, the shop was first handed over to the Godhna Committee, which managed the shop for about two to three months, and thereafter, in 2018, it was allotted to Jai 5 Mahamaya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh. Thus, the petitioners never handed over possession or stock directly to the said Samuh. It is contended that the impugned Show Cause Notice, issued after nearly five years, proceeds on an erroneous factual premise that the petitioners failed to hand over food grains to Jai Mahamaya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh. The respondent authorities have completely ignored the intervening management of the Godhna Committee and have not conducted any independent enquiry or physical verification before initiating recovery proceedings. It is further submitted that despite the petitioners filing a detailed reply, the same was not considered, and the impugned recovery memorandum was issued mechanically without any enquiry, evidence, or effective opportunity of hearing. No charge report, stock verification, inventory, or contemporaneous material has been placed on record to establish any shortage attributable to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that neither the Godhna Committee nor Jai Mahamaya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh ever raised any complaint regarding shortage of food grains at the time of transfer. The respondents have also failed to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, particularly the requirement of physical verification before fastening recovery liability. It is lastly submitted that this Court has consistently held that physical verification of stock is a mandatory prerequisite for issuance of a recovery 6 memorandum, and in the absence of such verification, the impugned proceedings are unsustainable. The impugned Show Cause Notice and Memorandum of Recovery, therefore, deserve to be quashed as being arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 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 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 7 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. 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 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 8 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) Judge U.K. Raju