Public Distribution System dealers may submit representations to authorities for consideration before initiation of certificate recovery proceedings.

The eight petitioners, PDS dealers in the Saur Bazar Block of Saharsa district, challenged recovery notices issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner and Block Development Officer (BDO) in 2019.

These notices directed the recovery of dues related to rice supplied under the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) scheme at a rate of ₹1370 per quintal, threatening certificate proceedings and monthly recovery processes for non-compliance.

The petitioners sought to quash these recovery letters and restrain the respondents from taking coercive actions.

During the proceedings, both parties noted that the legal issue had already been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of the same court.

1. Whether the recovery notices issued by the district authorities for SGRY scheme dues are valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to the same relief granted in similar precedents.

2. Whether the petitioners should be granted an opportunity to represent their case before the administrative authorities prior to the initiation of certificate proceedings.

The Court applied the principle of stare decisis and judicial consistency by relying on its previous judgment in Md. Yunus & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (C.W.J.C. No. 455 of 2020).

In that precedent, the court established that where recovery is sought for food grain balances, the principles of natural justice require that affected parties be permitted to submit representations and evidence to the Deputy Development Commissioner or BDO for consideration before certificate proceedings are formally lodged.

The Court observed that the controversy was no longer res integra (untouched by principle), as the legal questions involved were identical to those addressed in the Md. Yunus case.

In the precursor case, the court determined that the petitioners had rushed to the High Court without first approaching the concerned administrative authorities to explain why the amounts could not be deposited or to present evidence regarding their specific cases (such as prior deposits or exclusion from the Justice Uday Sinha Committee considerations).

Consequently, the Court found that the most appropriate course of action was to re-route the petitioners to the administrative stage to ensure their defense is heard before coercive recovery measures are taken.

The Court directed the petitioners to file representations before the Block Development Officer or Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa, within 30 days, bringing all supporting materials to their notice; the authorities are directed to consider these representations and take an appropriate view before lodging any certificate proceedings.