1 CGHC010158912023 2026:CGHC:41198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2239 of 2023 Birju Poya S/o Late Hriday Sai Aged About 38 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Khanddhaura, Block Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - The Food Officer District Korea Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 22.09.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 27.03.2023 and 24.04.2023, whereby respondent No.4/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) directed recovery of a sum of Rs.5,58,473.79/- from the petitioner on account of YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.22 17:46:31 +0530 2 alleged shortage of food grains in the Government Fair Price Shop, Khandhaura, bearing I.D. No.532004070. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned orders dated 27.03.2023 & 24.04.2023 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was managing the aforesaid Government Fair Price Shop, has challenged the recovery orders mainly on the ground that the same have been passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing and without conducting any proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the alleged shortage was determined on the basis of physical verification, but neither the physical verification report nor the Panchnama was supplied to him and no proper proceedings were conducted before fastening the liability upon him. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned recovery orders are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, having been passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that no proper enquiry was conducted before fastening the liability upon the petitioner and that the alleged shortage of food grains has been determined merely on the basis of physical verification, the report whereof was never supplied to the petitioner. He would further submit that the impugned orders have been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is submitted that neither any evidence was recorded nor the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity to controvert the alleged shortage or the material relied upon by the authorities. It is, therefore, contended that the availability of an alternative remedy would not operate as a bar to the maintainability of the present writ petition, particularly when the impugned orders have allegedly been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and supports the impugned orders. It is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal available under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which the petitioner has failed to avail. It is further submitted that during physical verification of the Fair Price Shop on 04.11.2022, shortage of food grains was detected and a Panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 4 09.12.2022 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation, and the petitioner subsequently submitted his reply on 20/21.03.2023. The said explanation was found unsatisfactory and, thereafter, the impugned recovery order dated 27.03.2023 was passed. It is thus submitted that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice are unfounded. He would further submit that the petitioner was managing the affairs of the Fair Price Shop and the shortage was detected during physical verification. Despite being called upon to explain the shortage and to produce relevant documents showing that the alleged shortage had been compensated, the petitioner failed to furnish satisfactory material in support of his explanation. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law and, in any event, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal, which he has failed to exhaust. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings of the parties and the documents brought on record. 6. From a perusal of the order-sheet dated 15.06.2023, it transpires that while entertaining the writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had recorded a prima facie finding that the State was not in a position to demonstrate whether an effective opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned recovery orders. The Coordinate Bench also took note of the specific contention of the petitioner that no preliminary enquiry had been 5 conducted before fastening liability upon him. Being prima facie satisfied that the petitioner had made out a strong case for grant of interim protection, the Coordinate Bench admitted the writ petition and stayed the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned orders, which interim protection continued during the pendency of the present writ petition. 7. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon careful examination of the material available on record, it seems that although the respondents have sought to justify the recovery proceedings by placing reliance upon the physical verification report, Panchnama and show-cause notice dated 09.12.2022, the records do not satisfactorily demonstrate that a comprehensive enquiry, in conformity with the requirements of Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, was conducted before determining the petitioner's liability. 8. The principles of natural justice are not empty formalities. Whenever civil consequences ensue by way of recovery of public money or determination of liability against a person, the authority concerned is duty-bound to conduct a fair, transparent and meaningful enquiry by affording an adequate opportunity to the affected person. Such opportunity necessarily includes disclosure of the material sought to be relied upon, permitting the petitioner to controvert the allegations, adducing evidence, examining relevant witnesses wherever 6 necessary and thereafter recording reasoned findings based upon the evidence available on record. 9. In the present case, this Court finds that the competent authority has proceeded to fasten monetary liability of Rs.5,58,473.79/- upon the petitioner without undertaking a complete enquiry in the manner contemplated under the Control Order, 2016. The records also do not reveal that the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity to rebut the alleged shortage or to controvert the material relied upon against him. The impugned orders, therefore, do not inspire confidence as having been passed after a full-fledged enquiry satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness. 10. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not required to enter into the disputed questions regarding the actual shortage of food grains or the petitioner's liability. Those are essentially matters to be determined by the competent authority upon appreciation of evidence. However, when the decision-making process itself is found to be deficient and contrary to the prescribed procedure, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is justified in interfering with the impugned orders and relegating the parties to the competent authority for fresh adjudication. 11. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 27.03.2023 and 24.04.2023 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), for fresh consideration. The concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall conduct a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with Clause 16 of 7 the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Before passing any final order, the authority shall afford adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, permit him to produce all documents in his defence, record the statements of all relevant witnesses whose evidence is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. 12. It is further directed that the petitioner shall obtain the certified copy of this order within one week from today and shall place the same before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Upon production of the certified copy, the competent authority shall proceed with the enquiry forthwith and shall make every endeavour to conclude the entire proceedings and pass a final order within a period of 30 days from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 13. It is made clear that no further notice shall be required to be issued to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in pursuance of this order. However, the competent authority shall issue appropriate notices to all necessary and affected parties, including the petitioner and any other person whose presence or evidence is considered necessary, so as to ensure that the enquiry is conducted in a fair, transparent and comprehensive manner within the aforesaid period. 14. The petitioner is also directed to extend full cooperation in the enquiry as contemplated under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. In the event the petitioner 8 fails to cooperate or deliberately delays the proceedings, it shall be open to the competent authority to proceed further in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on the basis of the material available on record. 15. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner or with regard to the alleged shortage of food grains, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be adjudicated independently by the competent authority without being influenced by any observation contained in this order. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh