Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3731 of 2025 Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kulhariya Having Its Registration No. 308, Through Its Incharge Manager Shani Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hariram Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village - Kulhariya, Post - Pali, District - Korba (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Directorate Of Food And Civil Supplies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Registrar Co-Operative Socieites, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Managing Director C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federaton Limited, C.B.D. Complex, Commercial Block C, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 7 - District Marketing Officer C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federaton Limited, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WITH 2 WPC No. 3978 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Utarda Having Its Registration No. 3051, Through Its Incharge Manager Samund Singh S/o Shri Bhuwan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Utarda, Post Utarda, Tahsil Hardibazar, District Korba C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Director, Directorate Of Food And Civil Supplies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - Collector Korba, District Korba C.G. 5 - Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 6 - Managing Director, C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, C B D Complex, Commercial Block C Sector 21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 7 - District Marketing Officer, C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, Korba, District Korba C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA For Respondents No.6 & 7 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 01/08/2025 3 Heard. 1. By way of present petitions, petitioners are challenging the orders dated 16.06.2025 (bearing No.871/Food/2025) & 19.06.2025 (bearing No.892//Food/2025) respectively passed by respondent No.4- Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). 2. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the C.G. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and is engaged in the work of procurement of paddy from the farmers. On 14/11/2024, a triparty agreement was entered between the petitioner, respondent no.7 and the District Co-operative Bank for procurement of paddy from the farmers, as per the instructions and directions issued by the respondent no.1 and upon execution of the agreement, the work of procurement was started by the petitioner. That on 23/01/2025, during the inspection by the Nayab Tahsildar, Pali, it was found that, there have been certain irregularities in the Society and FIR was also lodged against the responsible officer. That, the petitioner respectfully submits that, upon registration of FIR, the working body of the petitioner Society was changed and the work of procurement was successfully completed. That, though the paddy were lifted from the Society, however no order was issued for 840 & 360 quintal respectively of paddy, therefore vide different letters, the petitioner society requested for lifting of the remaining stock of 840 & 360 quintal (respectively) of paddy, as the non-lifting will lead to financial 4 loss to the Society as well as keeping paddy for a long term at the society will also cause damage to paddy, but to no avail no action has been taken by the authorities for lifting of the same and thus the petitioner approached this Court by filing petition and the same was disposed of and directing the authorities to lift the paddy after verifying the weight. In furtherance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner appraised the authorities for complying the order, however instead of lifting the paddy, in the most arbitrary manner by the order impugned, the respondent no.4 decided not to lift the paddy on the ground that, the bags of paddy does not bear the stencil of the society and the same indicates that, the paddy is not the government paddy and is not of good quality. That, the instant action of the authorities is arbitrary, illegal and against the interest of the Society, as well as public at large. Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 4 Collector, Korba where by the Respondent No. 4 on physical verification of the stock of paddy at the procurement center of the petitioner has found that the bags of paddy stored in the procurement center of the petitioner do not bear stencil mark and is not of good quality. It is respectfully submitted that on 11.01.2025 physical verification was conducted by the verification committee headed by 5 the Nayab Tehsildar at the petitioner's society and by the committee it was found that there is shortage of total 811 qt of paddy in the society. Based upon the said report, an FIR was also registered against the Incharge of the paddy procurement center and the Manager by the Office of Cooperative Development Officer, Development Block Podi before the Korbi Chowki, thana Korba under Section of 316(4), 3(5) of the BNS stating that on the physical verification conducted at the society of the petitioner total 811 qt of paddy stock has been found missing. It is further submitted that on 26.05.2025 a committee of Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Podi, Assistant Food Officer and Tehsildar Pasan conducted a physical verification at the procurement center and prepared a panchnama regarding the same and found that total 42.15 qt of paddy has been found less against the quantity which is being shown available in the online record as 840 qt which is not of good quality and in the bags available at the center no stencil mark of the society has been found. The said conduct of the petitioner’s society is malafide in nature and do not call for any interference from the Court and makes the petition liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of the 6 record, it reveals that when physical verification was conducted by respondent No.4 of the stock of paddy at the procurement center of the petitioner has found that the bags of paddy stored in the procurement center of the petitioner do not bear stencil mark. Further it reveals that on 11.01.2025, when physical verification was conducted by the verification committee headed by the Nayab Tehsildar at the petitioner's society and by the Committee, it was found that there is shortage of total 811 qt of paddy in the society and the same was found missing. 6. It further reveals that on 26.05.2025, a Committee of Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Podi, Assistant Food Officer and Tehsildar Pasan conducted a physical verification at the procurement center and prepared a panchnama regarding the same and found that total 42.15 qt of paddy has been found less against the quantity which is being shown available in the online record as 840 qt which is not of good quality and in the bags available at the center no stencil mark of the society has been found. The said conduct of the petitioner’s society is malafide in nature. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the petitioners challenging the impugned order for quashment passed by respondent No.4, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference. 7 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant