Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2651 of 2025 1. Revaram Sahu S/o Shri Mukhiram Sahu Aged About 61 Years Posted As- Procurement Center Incharge Joba Of The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Achhola, Reg. No. 1018, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.05.27 17:19:24 +0530 versus ... Petitioner 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur Through Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Branch Tumgaon Distt- Mahasamund Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Through Branch Manager, Branch Tumgaon Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Tumgaon District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Through- Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, 6th Floor, Tower C Cbd, Sector- 21 Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative And Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Socieities, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6. District Mark-Fed Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, Mahasamund, District- Mahsamund, Chhattisgarh. 7. The Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate For Petitioner For State/Res.No.1, 5 & 7 : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 For Respondents No.4 & 6 Mr. Harshal Chauhan, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 27/05 / 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 2024–25 was till 31.01.2025, accordingly, petitioner purchased paddy. In the said agreement entered into between the parties, it is an obligation on the part of respondent – Marketing Federation to lift paddy from the Procurement Centre and to store in particular place within specified period. However, respondents - Marketing Federation 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, the petitioner are 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. Petitioner 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 were not issued any show cause notice nor were given any intimation as to what was the 3 actual loss. 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 petitioner therein to avail remedy of arbitration under Clause-13 of the agreement and till decision of proceedings under the arbitration to be submitted before the Collector, interest of petitioner therein were also protected. He submits that case of petitioner are also on similar footing and therefore similar order may be passed in his favor. 2. Learned counsel for respondents 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 13 of tripartite agreement. He also does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on the order passed by this Court in similar writ 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 or for recovery 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 4 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 13 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute between the parties, reads as under :- “13- vkfCkZVªs'ku %& इस अनुबंध की किकसी भी कቄኌ(cid:15)(cid:16)का से संबंधिधत कि(cid:21)(cid:21)ाद किन्ቓ"य हेतु जि%ले उत्प्ቐ होने की ቄኌ(cid:29)(cid:30)धित में कि(cid:21)(cid:21)ाद के किन्ቓ"य अቄኌ*तम होगा %ो में किदये गये उभयप्ቌों को मा*य होगा। कलेक्टर ्ቛारा किन्ቓ"य की अपील उभयप्ቌों ्ቛारा संबंधिधत जि%ले के संभागीय आयु्ሹ को की %ा सके गी। जि%ला कलेक्टर का ... ” 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
Decision
before this Court for consideration, this 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 petitioner and will also be at liberty to invoke Clause -14 of the 5 proforma agreement and to pass orders on representation at the earliest after receipt of representation. The petitioner are 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 that the petitioner are 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 they submit the representation within specified time till decision on his representation. 9. I.A. No. 02, which is an application for hearing during summer vacation and I.A. No. 03, which is an application for urgent hearing are disposed off. Sourabh P. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge