1 - Yadavram Ahir S/o. Shri Kishunlal Ahir Aged About 37 Years At Present v. 1 - The Union Of India Through Secretary Co-Operative, Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, Cgo
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2981 of 2025 1 - Yadavram Ahir S/o. Shri Kishunlal Ahir Aged About 37 Years At Present Society Manager/ Incharge Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kolihapuri, R.N. No. 939, Paddy Procurement Center, Rangkathera, Add- Village - Kolihapuri, Post - Tppa, Tehsil - Lal Bahadur Nagar, Dist. Rajnandgoan (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Union Of India Through Secretary Co-Operative, Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, Behind Nia Building, New Delhi. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Supplies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Office At 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex,cbd, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 492 002. 5 - The Collector Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 6 - The District Marketing Officer District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 7 - The Chief Executive Officer Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 8 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
decided by this Court in WPC No.1502 of 2025 (Chitrasent Rath Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other connected matters, therefore,
Arguments
: Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 4 & 6 For Respondent No. 2 : : : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondent's authority to lift the paddy from procurement centers forthwith as per the number of bags. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to comply the terms and condition of the policy and agreement, which relates to lifting of paddy within prescribed period. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondent's authority to pay the all 3 expenses made by the petitioner to keep the paddy in safe. 10.4 That the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the benefit of loss of paddy due to driage and change of climates in light of clarification letter dated 12.11.2024 as well as letter dated 25/02/2025. 10.5. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to direct the respondent to consider and decide the representation of petitioner in light of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in similar cases. 10.6 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice." 3. The petitioner has approached this Court while seeking interference under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He is aggrieved by the acts of the respondent authorities by which the paddy collected by him as per guidelines of the State Government is not being lifted. The entire quantity of paddy which has been purchased by the petitioner society are not being lifted due to which the paddy is drying and its weight, quantity and quality is decreasing day by day. The stock of paddy has crossed buffer limit, however, the last date for purchasing the paddy has been expired but the quantity purchased could not be lifted only due to adamant acts of the respondent authorities especially by the State authorities. On the one hand, the paddy is not being lifted and the weight of the paddy is being reduced due to driage of the paddy for which the petitioners are not 4 responsible and on the other hand, the concerned managers and employees of the society are being threatened for lodging complaints against them, till date order is not being issued. As such, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal as the same is totally contrary to the Constitutional soul and also violation of principal of natural justice. The action of respondent no. 4 is malice due to petitioner from his each and every movement ensure to comply the guidelines/direction of the State but State authority failed to consider it. He further contended that the authority is not complying and following the guideline/policy made by the State and Union body (Annexure P/1). He also submits that the rice millar with corroboration of respondent no. 4 to 8 now seeking 10% illegal demand to clear the Zero shortage and transporting the rest paddy from center. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the issue involved in the present writ petitions has already been considered and
Decision
the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Chitrasen Rath (supra). 5. Learned State Counsel submit that the reasons provided by the petitioner can be considered to some extent, however, the petitioner is attempting to take advantage of the climatic conditions and the natural driage of the paddy. They submit that the petitioner is allowing the deficit in the quantity of paddy, which, according to the State, cannot be accepted. 5 They submits that the State Government is expected to take a decision on this matter shortly and once the decision is taken, the petitioners will be informed in accordance with the State Government's decision. Learned State counsel further contended that they have no objection if the similar order which was passed in WPC 1502/2025 (Chitrasen Rath Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other connected matters is passed in the present writ petitions also. 6. Learned Counsel for Respondent - MARKFED submits that, regarding the lifting of paddy, the MARKFED is actively lifting the paddy, and it would be incorrect to state that the lifting is not taking place. It is stated that regarding the deficit in paddy, the respondent State may be directed to conduct an inquiry and to take a decision concerning the lifting of the remaining paddy. However, it has been specifically stated that there is no hindrance in the lifting of paddy and there are circulars from the Central Government as well as directions from the State Government, due to which the lifting of paddy is being done repeatedly. The respondents are confident that the State Government will issue necessary orders concerning the lifting of the remaining paddy from the procurement centers and for the decision regarding the loss of quantity of the paddy, it will be upon the Central and State Governments to take the necessary decisions and issue appropriate orders. It is further submitted that the MARKFED is the agency entrusted with lifting the paddy and sending it to the custom milling centers, is fulfilling its responsibilities. It is contended that once the Central Government, in consultation with the State Government, makes a decision regarding adjustment of the loss of 6 quantity of paddy, the matter will be adjusted in accordance with law and at present, the major part of the petitioners' grievance has already been redressed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the documents appended to the writ petition. 8. Upon perusal of the record, circulars and policies, it appears that the quantity of paddy is being lifted from the concerned procurement centers time to time and the time for lifting paddy has been extended several times. From the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent State, it seems that the State Government is considering a decision regarding the lifting of paddy beyond the extended time. Furthermore, since the paddy has been collected by the concerned procurement centers in accordance with Government policy and the agreements entered into by the parties, it is the duty of the State to collect the said paddy whereas for various reasons, the paddy could not be collected on time. Since the State Government has extended the lifting time repeatedly, it is expected that considering the welfare nature of the State, the paddy would be lifted from the concerned procurement centers. This act is to prevent damage to the collected paddy due to the efflux of time, climatic conditions, natural hazards such as mice and other insects and to the fact that the rainy season is proximate. 9. The issue now pertains to the loss of paddy due to driage caused by climatic and other conditions beyond the control of the petitioner societies. Since, various factors have contributed to the delay in lifting 7 the paddy, including weather conditions leading to the loss of paddy quantity. While previous years had prescribed limits for driage, no such circular has been issued for the current season and both the Central and State Governments need to take a decision in this matter. Therefore, this Court expects that both the Central and State Governments will frame rules/directions to address this issue. It is unavoidable that the quantity of paddy will be affected by climatic and other factors beyond control. Hence, the State Government, in consultation with the Central Government, must take a decision regarding this matter. 10. Responsibility to ensure timely action is on the part of the State, particularly, in the context of public policy and the protection of public interests. Therefore, the State Government must ensure framing and compliance of the public policies timely and take appropriate action when delay occur in implementation of the said policies. Furthermore, the principle of accountability requires that the public grievances are resolved in a timely and efficient manner. 11.This aspect of the matter has been considered by the various High Courts including Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, in CWP No.- 20840/2021 wherein it has been held as under:- “14. In view of the above, we dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:- i) The reduction of the driage allowance, as ordered by the Government of India vide its letter dated December 3, 1998, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure 8 P8 in C.W.P. No. 833 of 2001, is set aside. In other respects, there has been no challenge. ii) Any orders for recovery on account of reduction in driage allowance shall stand quashed." As per Union of India, the driage has been determined on the basis of data supplied by the State Government. The State in its additional affidavit has submitted that they have claimed driage @ 1% but Central Government has wrongly determined driage less than 1% of MSP. The relevant extracts of additional affidavit of the State read as:- "4. That it is submitted that Schedule-II appended with writ petition as Annexure P-5 as observed by the Hon'ble Court in the order dated 01-08-2023, the same has not prepared by the Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Department of Punjab. This is a calculation made by the Department of Food & Public Distribution, Govt. of India on the basis of Stock Flow Statement and not considering the audited balance sheets submitted by Govt. of Punjab. This Schedule has prepared by Procurement Incidental (PI)Cell of Department of Food & Public Distribution Govt. of India on their own & is forming part of Final Finding report of KMS 2014-15. The State of Punjab has claimed full driage @1% of MSP i.e. Rs. 14.00/qtl in respect of all agencies which is clear from the submission of final claims of KMS 2014-15 submitted vide letter no. PRA PRA-Inci-3-34-2017/1868 9 dated:- 14-09-2017(copy appended as annexure R-6). Further, as required by Department of Food & Public Distribution, Govt. of India, the Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Punjab and Managing Directors of all State Procuring Agencies had certified that the benefit of driage charges @1% of MSP has already been passed on to millers and same has been reimbursed by FCI for paddy milled during for central pool as per provisional cost sheet issued by Govt. of India vide letter no. 192(14)/2014-FC A/cs dated 16th October, 2014, the copy of which was also submitted with final claims to the Govt. of India. The State of Punjab had made payment towards driage @ 1% of MSP. It is consistent stand of the State that petitioners are entitled to driage @1%, however, Central Government has wrongly calculated driage less than 1% of MSP. The State by impugned notices is attempting to recover difference between driage paid at provisional rate and final rate determined by Central Government. From the affidavit of State, it is evident that State is pursuing the matter with the Central Government and for the said purpose they have addressed various communications to the Central Government. As per State Government, the Central Government has wrongly determined driage and as per Mr. Sunish Bindlish, learned counsel for Union of India & Food Corporation of India, rates have been determined on the 10 basis of data furnished. Be that as it may, the issue of determination of final rates was between State Government and Central Government. If there is any mis- communication or mis-understanding between the State Government and Central Government, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The State has unilaterally initiated recovery proceedings. Neither notice nor opportunity of hearing was granted to the aggrieved parties. The Respondent-State was bound to follow procedure prescribed by law. The State has no authority to initiate recovery proceedings without associating affected parties.” 12. In the aforesaid case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court finds that the driage allowance, which would compensate for weight loss during storage and processing of paddy, was rightfully claimed from the State of Punjab at the rate of 1% of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for KMS 2014–15. This rate was certified by the Principal Secretary and Managing Directors of the State Procuring Agencies, and payments were made accordingly. However, the Central Government unilaterally determined a lower driage rate based on stock flow data without considering the audited financial records submitted by the State. As a result of this mismatch, the State initiated recovery proceedings against millers and other stakeholders to recover the difference between the amount paid and the amount reimbursed. The Court holds that such recovery actions, undertaken without notice or opportunity of hearing, are in violation of the principles of natural justice. It further observes that 11 the issue of final driage rate determination lies between the Central and State Governments, and private parties cannot be held liable for discrepancies arising out of inter-governmental disputes. Consequently, the Court sets aside the reduction of the driage allowance by the Central Government and quashes the recovery proceedings initiated by the State, declaring them unauthorized and procedurally invalid. 13.The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the payment of driage @ 1% of MSP as valid, and found the recovery efforts by the State illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of due process. The dispute over driage reimbursement is an inter-governmental matter and cannot be passed onto the petitioners. 14.Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and submissions advanced by the parties, this Court directs the petitioners to submit an appropriate representation along with a copy of this order before the Central and the State Governments to consider the issue and for redressal of their grievances within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the authorities concerned, in turn, shall consider and decide the said representations while passing a reasoned order within a further period of 90 days in accordance with law. 15.Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima 12