1 2026:CGHC:20411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2150 of 2026 1 - Janki Rathia W/o Suresh Rathia Aged About 42 Years R/o - Village Deurmar, Post Office Kataipali (C), Tehsil -Chhal, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Raigarh, District -Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub -Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dharamjaigarh, District -Raigarh ,chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Tehsil -Chhal, District -Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title as taken from CIS periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/05/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.05.02 17:05:40 +0530 2 quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 issued by Tehsildar Chhal annexed as Annexure P/1. 10.2 Issue such further or other writ, order, or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to secure the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the RRC notice issued against the petitioner is not in accordance with law. It is palpably illegal, as the order dated 25.07.2025, on the basis of which the said RRC notice has been issued by the Tehsildar, has already been quashed by this Court in WPC No.6051/2025. He further submits that paragraph 9 of the said order clearly indicates that the said order has been quashed, and as such, no RRC notice can be issued on the basis of an order which has already been set aside/quashed by this Court. 3. In reply, learned State counsel submit that though the said order was quashed, however, liberty was granted to the concerned Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) to initiate fresh proceedings by passing an order based on the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, after considering reply already submitted by petitioner following due process of law. 4. When specific question was posed to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any orders have been passed by the concerned SDO (R) in fresh proceedings, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to him no any 3 order has yet been passed by the concerned SDO (R) in fresh proceedings, and only notices have been issued. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Vide order dated 24.11.2025 in WPC No.6051/2025, this Court has passed the following order in paragraph 9 & 10:- “9. Considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievances as raised in this writ petition as also documents placed before this Court by both the sides, I am of the view that competent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue), without passing an order considering the material available before it including reply, no proceedings for recovery of the amount can be initiated and therefore, the entire proceedings directed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) pursuant to letter Annexure P-1 and P- 2 is hereby quashed. 10. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) i.e. respondent no. 3 will be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by passing an order based on the show cause notice issued by petitioner considering reply already submitted by petitioner following due process of law, if so desires.” 7. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the impugned notice dated 24.04.2026 issued by respondent No.4/the Tehsildar is hereby quashed, as the original order dated 25.07.2025 has already been set-aside/quashed by this Court in WPC No.6051/2025. 4 8. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, if exigency so arises. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Rukhsar