Jai Mahalaxmi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Jai Mahalaxmi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayed relief granted: recovery memo No.431 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-5) set aside/quashed; petition allowed with liberty to respondent No.4 to pass a fresh speaking order and fresh recovery order, if any; petition thereafter recorded as disposed of; pending IAs disposed of; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery memo No.431 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-5) retains legal force after the underlying order (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.4 was set aside by this Court in WPC No.726/2026. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the original order (Annexure P-4) has already been set aside by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026 in WPC No.726/2026, the recovery memo No.431 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.4 has also lost its validity; no recovery can be made thereunder; the memo has no legal force and is set aside/quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is left with respondent No.4 to pass a speaking order as directed by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026, and thereafter to pass a fresh recovery order, if any.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226) by a women's self-help society challenging recovery memo No.431 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.4, Food Controller, Durg, for recovery of Rs.8,27,141/- from the petitioner. The underlying order No.430 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) of the same authority had already been set aside by the High Court by order dated 18.02.2026 in WPC No.726/2026, with liberty to pass a fresh speaking order considering the entire material, including the petitioner's reply. Held: the consequential recovery memo, being founded on the set-aside order, had lost its validity and had no legal force; recovery could not be made thereunder; the memo was set aside/quashed. The State's objection that the petition was not maintainable because the memo had not been challenged in the earlier writ petition was not upheld. Liberty was left with respondent No.4 to pass a fresh speaking order as earlier directed and, if warranted, a fresh recovery order. Petition allowed (subsequently recorded as disposed of); no costs.

1

2026:CGHC:10994

Digitally signed by RUKHSAR RUKHSAR BANO BANO Date: 2026.03.03 17:29:19 +0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 933 of 2026

1 - Jai Mahalaxmi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Borsi, Ward No. 52, Borsi (Id No. 431001077), Nagar Nigam Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Through Its President Smt. Gauri Bai Nirmalkar W/o Babulal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Pacharipara Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office Durg District Durg (C.G.)

4 - Food Controller Durg District Durg (C.G.)

5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

... Respondents

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

For Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Advocate

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

03/03/2026

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

2

been preferred by petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside /quash the order dated 02.02.26 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.4, Food Controller, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) by which the respondent no.4 directed the petitioner society to deposit the amount of Rs.8,27,141/- through challan.

10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure -P/6) passed in WPC No.726/2026, the order No.430/अ��जन/2026 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure -P/4) passed by respondent No.4, the Food Controller, Durg, District Durg was set aside by this Court granting liberty to the respondent No.4 to pass fresh speaking order after considering the entire material available, including reply submitted on behalf of petitioner. He further submits that on the same day, based on order (Annexure -P/4), respondent No.4 also issued a memo No.431/अ��जन/2026 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure - P/5) for recovery of Rs.8,27,141/- from petitioner, but that has not been observed in order (Annexure -P/4) itself. He also submits that since the original order (Annexure -P/4) has been set aside, therefore memo No. 431/अ��जन/2026 dated 02.02.02 (Annexure -P/5) has lost its efficacy/validity. Hence, learned counsel prays that memo (Annexure - P/5) may be quashed.

Per contra , learned State counsel submits that in earlier petition, memo (Annexure -P/5), which has been issued in form of order, also ought to have been challenged by petitioner, but the same was not challenged in earlier writ petition, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

3

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available record.

Since the original order No.430/अ��जन/2026 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure -P/4) passed by respondent No.4 has already been set aside by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026 passed in WPC No.726/2026, therefore, recovery memo No.431/अ��जन/2026 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure -P/5) issued by respondent No.4, the Food Controller, Durg has also lost its validity. Hence, recovery cannot be made by respondent No.4 based on the order (Annexure -P/4) and memo (Annexure -P/5) of the said amount. Thus, recovery memo No. 431/अ��जन/2026 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure -P/5) has no legal force, therefore, the same is set aside /quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is left with the respondent No.4 that by passing speaking order as directed by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2026, fresh recovery order may also be passed, if any.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of .

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

JUDGE

Rukhsar