1 CGHC010238212023 2026:CGHC:42446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3378 of 2023 Surendra Sahu S/o Shivkeshwar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years Salesman Of Fair Price Shop- Pumpapur I.D.No. 392011026 R/o Village Pumpapur Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Collector (Food Department) Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujnagar District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Food Inspector Ramanujnagar District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For State/Respondents : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.09.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the impugned recovery order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,05,826.02 towards alleged YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.29 18:04:59 +0530 2 shortage of food grains in the fair price shop, failing which recovery proceedings have been proposed, contending that the said order has been passed without considering the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner, without physical verification of the fair price shop and merely on the basis of online data, in violation of Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and the applicable departmental circulars. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned recovery notice dated 29.05.2023 issued by the respondent no.3 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. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned recovery order challenged in the present petition has already been withdrawn by the State Government. In view thereof, nothing survives for consideration in the present petition and the same has rendered infructuous. 3. Having considered the submissions of learned State counsel, this Court finds that, in view of withdrawal of the impugned recovery order, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition. 3 Accordingly, the present petition has rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. 4. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh