Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3612 of 2025 1 - Sudesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Ramuram Dewangan Aged About 51 Years R/o 77 Ward No. 02, Mandir Para, Village- Rawad, Parsada Joshi, Gariyaband, Pin 493885, Chhattisgarh Occupation - Incharge Society Manager Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Pokhra, Branch Rajim, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Cg Markfed), Gariyaband, Behind Sbi, Near Tehsil, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh Email- [email protected] 3 - Ass. Comm. For Co-Operation And Ass. Comm. Co-Operative Societies, Dist.- Gariyaband Gaurav Path Road, Gariyaband, C.G. Email - [email protected] 4 - Nodal Officer, Distt.- Gariyaband Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur, G.E. Road, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Pin - 492001, Chhattisgarh Email - [email protected] ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State For Respondent no. 2 For Respondent no. 4
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mallick Sudip Ravi, Advocate : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, panel lawyer : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.07.15 17:29:50 +0530 14.07.2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner in this writ petition 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 them as per 2 guidelines of the State Government is not being lifted. The entire quantity of paddy which has been purchased by the concerned petitioner societies 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, the quantity purchased could not be lifted only due to adamant acts of the respondent authorities especially by the State authorities. As such, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The relief(s) sought by the petitioner by way of this petition are as under:- “a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ to Quash/set aside the impugned recovery order dated 26.03.2025, 01.04.2025 and 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-1 colly) and further direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action or steps against the petitioner. b. direct the respondent authorities that the petitioner should not be removed from his managerial and financial responsibilities of the Society. c. issue an appropriate writ or order staying any coercive action or steps against the petitioner until the proper process is followed as per the Tripartite Agreement; d. direct the respondent authorities to comply with the terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement and related policies concerning the procurement, insurance, and lifting of paddy. e. direct the respondents to provide compensation for the loss of paddy due to unforeseen circumstances such as dryness and rodent damages. f. grant any other relief that this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. That the impugned notice dated 26-03-2025 and further notices dated 01- 04-2025 and 02-04-2025 are unjustified as the delay in lifting the paddy was caused by factors beyond the control of the Petitioner, including the failure of the Respondents to prioritize lifting from the procurement centres. That the Petitioner complied with the procurement process as per the Tripartite Agreement and completed the procurement by 14-11- 2024. The delay in lifting should not result in punitive actions against the petitioner. That the final settlement regarding the lifting of paddy from 3 the procurement centres was completed only on April, 2025, which was significantly delayed, considering that the procurement for the Kharif crop season 2024-2025 had already concluded on 31-01-2025. There is thus a delay of over two months beyond the completion of the procurement season, causing hardship to the procurement centres in managing and safely storing the excess stock during this extended period. There is no allegation or finding in the record that the Petitioner indulged in any deliberate misappropriation, misconduct, or breach of duty. As a public servant performing delegated functions, Petitioner cannot be held personally liable unless malafide intent or gross negligence is established. 4. That as per Clause 16.4 of the Paddy Procurement Policy dated 18/10/2024, once the buffer limit is exceeded, immediate lifting arrangements must be made which was not ensured despite repeated requests by the Petitioner. Further, Clause 21 provides for insurance coverage of stock, yet no assessment of the same has been made before initiating recovery. Additionally, Clause 13 of the Tripartite Agreement mandates arbitration in case of dispute, which has been bypassed without any inquiry or hearing, rendering the proposed recovery arbitrary and premature. Annexed hereto and marked as 'Annexure P-6' is the copy of relevant pages of Paddy Procurement Policy dated 18/10/2024. That in Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Marayadit Kulhariya vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPC No. 2133/2025), this Hon'ble Court acknowledged natural shrinkage in stored paddy as a factor the government must consider in assessing delay or deterioration, emphasizing the administrative duty to lift and rotate stocks timely. That the notice violates the terms of the Tripartite Agreement, which includes a provision for arbitration, and the Respondents should have followed the arbitration process before issuing such a notice as per the Clause 13 of the Agreement. That the claim of a total shortfall of 719.29 quintals at Pokhra Centre is disputed, as the petitioner has taken all necessary steps to ensure proper procurement and storage. That the Respondents failed to comply with the agreed timelines and lifting instructions, leading to the 4 exceeding of buffer limits and subsequent issues such as drying, sweeping and rodent damage. 5. That the buffer limit at the procurement centre Pokhra was set at 8000 quintals; however, the stock exceeded by nearly 10 times in the centre, causing severe distress and hardship to the Society and the Petitioner in maintaining the safe storage of the paddy. The procurement centres are structured and equipped to safely keep only up to the buffer stock limit, and such massive overflow compromised the quality and safety of the stored paddy, for which the Respondents are responsible. 6. 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 seek allowing the deficit in the quantity of paddy, which, according to the State, cannot be accepted. They submits that the State Government is expected to take a decision on this matter shortly and once the decision is taken, the petitioner will be informed in accordance with the State Government's decision. 7. Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 2 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. As such, the grievance raised by the petitioner has largely been addressed, and only a very small quantity remains. 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 5 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 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the documents appended
Decision
to the writ petition. 9. On 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. 10.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 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 6 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. 11. 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. 14. 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 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 mby 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 7 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-Inci-3-34-2017/1868 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 1) petitioners are entitled to driage @1%, 8 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 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 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. 9 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 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 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 petitioner 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 his 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, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE