Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 10:35:08 +0530 2025:CGHC:8522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 959 of 2025 1 Lawan Singh Kashyap S/o Late Ramuram Kashyap Aged About 55 Years Occupation Manager Of Paddy Procurement Center Bhanupratappur Ranwahi, Lams R/o Village Nangud, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Suplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 Collector (Co-Operative Branch) Uttar-Bastar-Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 Managing Director Chhattisgarh Station Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex C B D, Sector 21, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 4 Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies Uttar Bastar Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 6 Nodal Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Branch Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
petitioner based on the order passed by this Court in similar writ 5 petitions. Learned State counsel also submits that as the loss of paddy is causing loss of State exchequer, and therefore the Collector has issued a direction to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of amount towards the loss of aforementioned quantity of paddy, hence, the action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 3. I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the copy of tripartite agreement enclosed along with this writ petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly that no action can be taken against the petitioner in the individual capacity if for any reason there is shortage in the quantity of paddy and that too unless and until some inquiry is conducted. Clause 5.6 of the Agreement reads as under :- “5.6- foi.ku la?k }kjk iznk; dh xbZ jkf'k ls miktZu dsUnz ¼lfefr½ }kjk /kku foi.ku la?k dks de izkIr gksus ij 'ks"k jkf'k dh olwyh lfefr dks iznk; deh'ku ,oa vU; vuqlkafxd enksa ls jkf'k dh dVkSrh dh tkosxh A blds mijkar Hkh olwyh ;ksX; jkf'k 'ks"k jgus ij ftyk foi.ku vf/kdkjh }kjk N-x- jkT; lgdkjh lkslk;Vh vf/kfu;e 1960 ds varxZr olwyh dk;Zokgh gsrq l{ke U;k;ky; esa izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkosxk A” 5. Clause 14 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute between the parties, reads as under :- “14- vkfCkZVªs'ku %& bl vuqca/k dh fdlh Hkh df.Mdk ls lacaf/kr fookn mRiUu gksus dh fLFkfr esa fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq ftys esa ftyk dysDVj dk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxk tks mHk;i{kksa dks 6 ekU; gksxk A dysDVj }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dh vihy mHk;i{kksa }kjk ftys ds laHkkxh; vk;qDr dks dh tk ldsxh A” 6. Under clause 5.6 of the Agreement, there is specific provision as to the recovery of the loss suffered by the Marketing Federation to be made from the concerned Society, wherein primarily, it is to be recovered from the commission and other heads for which the Society is entitled, for their services rendered in paddy procurement. If further amount is left, then the recovery proceedings is to be initiated under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner,aforementioned relevant clauses of the agreement as also considering the copy of the policy formulated by the State Govt. which is placed before this Court for consideration, this
Arguments
For Petitioner For Respondents/State For Respondents No. 3 & 5 : Shri Harshal Chouhan, Advocate : Shri Kunal Das, Advocate. : Shri Ritesh Giri, P.L. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of Manager and also worked as in-charge of Paddy Procurement Centre as mentioned in cause title of the writ petition. Petitioner purchased paddy under the Policy formulated by respondents. According to the tripartite agreement entered into between the parties, last / cut-off date for lifting of paddy in the kharif season 2023–24 was till 28.02.2024, accordingly, petitioner purchased paddy. In the said agreement entered into between the parties, it is an obligation on the part of respondent No. 3 & 5 to lift paddy from the Procurement Centre 3 and to store in particular place within specified period. However, respondent No. 3 & 5 failed to lift paddy purchased by petitioner society within specified time from the date of its purchase. Entire paddy purchased by society was dumped in the open sky at Paddy Procurement Centre under direct sunlight due to which moisture of paddy dried and had suffered loss of weight. He contended that after lifting and transportation of paddy from Paddy Procurement Centre, though, notice was issued mentioning shortage of stock of paddy and to deposit the quantity of paddy as mentioned in the notice within a period of three days. The petitioner is being harassed and threatened by the respondent authorities through the police administration by calling him in the police station, keeping him sitting there for whole day and also threatening to register case against him, without following the due procedure as provided under the Policy formulated by the State Government, providing the petitioner an opportunity to explain as to whether, there is any loss or not and further that, the employees of the Paddy Procurement Centre where the paddy is still lying to be transported, he is also being called by the authorities and being threatened to fulfill the loss due to shortage of paddy, without there being any proper assessment of the shortage. The action on the part of respondents is per se illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner was not issued any show cause notice nor was given 4 any intimation as to what was the actual loss, what was the quantity which was deducted from the loss according to policy of State Government of deducting the loss due to dryness of the moisture etc. and straightaway issued notice. He also contended that earlier also similar actions were taken against which several writ petitions were filed in which this Court taking note of the clauses of agreement had permitted petitioners therein to avail remedy of arbitration under Clause-14 of the agreement and till decision of proceedings under the arbitration to be submitted before the Collector, interest of petitioners therein were also protected. He submits that case of petitioner is also on similar footing and therefore similar order may be passed in their favor. 2. Learned State counsel and Mr. Harshal Chouhan, counsel for respondent No. 3 & 5 opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that upon completion of upliftment and transportation of paddy purchased by petitioner at Paddy Procurement Centre, shortage of paddy was found, petitioner could not able to give proper and satisfactory reply and therefore, the proceeding have been initiated. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on Clause 5.6 and 14 of tripartite agreement. He also does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for
Decision
writ petition is disposed of with a permission to the petitioner to file representation before the Collector in terms of Clause 14 of the Agreement within a period of 03 weeks from today. The Collector, in turn, shall adjudicate upon the grounds raised by the writ petitioners and will also be at liberty to invoke Clause - 14 of the proforma agreement and to pass orders on representation within a period of 50 days from today. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the proceedings of the inquiry, if any, conducted by respondent – Authority. 8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner 7 that the petitioner is being threatened for taking coercive action against him if he fails to meet out the shortage of paddy, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner if he submits the representation within specified time till decision on their representation. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti