Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1641-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 5 of 2025 1 - Buddhdev Sarkar S/o Shri Kalipad Sarkar Aged About 67 Years President Kissan Sangathan / Parolkot Kissan Utpad Samiti Chhattisgarh Kissan Sabha Pv- 49 Sitapur Police Station Pakhanjur District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Agriculture Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar Pakhanjur District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Suman Traders Through Its Proprietor Suman Rai S/o Sunit Rai Age About 32 Years R/o P.V. - 46 Mahatma Gandhi Ward Pakhanjur P.S. And Tahsil Pakhanjur District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent Of Police District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 6 - The Station House Officer Police Station Pakhanjur District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Y. S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10 .01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for respondent/ State. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’, the petitioner is seeking emergent and appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to ensure payment of consideration amount to the poor farmers, and also directed to proceed for seizure of movable and immovable property of respondent No. 4 who is the private respondent in the matter with the following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State Authorities to ensure payment of consideration amount to the poor farmers, who have sold maize to the respondent no. 4. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State Authorities to proceed for seizure of movable and immovable property of respondent No. 4. 3 10.3 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 3. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2022 the respondent No. 4 has purchased maize from near about 1000 farmers of District- North Bastar Kanker for selling the same in the market, but after selling the maize, till date the respondent No. 4 has not paid the entire consideration amount to the farmers and amount of Rs. 8 Crores is payable to the farmers, who have sold the maize crops to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner is the President of Kissan Sangathan/ Parolkot Kissan Utpad Samiti and the petitioner as well as the affected farmers have made several complaints before the State Authorities for recovery of amount payable to the farmers, but only oral assurances were given to the famers and no appropriate action has been taken by the State Authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the in the year 2022, the respondent No. 4 through his agents, has purchase maize from near about 1000 farmers of District- North Bastar Kanker and sold the same in the market and obtained the profit, but after selling the maize, till date the respondent No. 4 has not paid the entire consideration amount to the farmers and amount of Rs. 8 Crore is payable to the farmers. He further submits that the respondent State authorities ought to have seized the movable and immovable property of respondent no. 4 for 4 making payment to the poor farmers, which are situated in District North Bastar Kanker in the name of respondent No. 4. He also stated that the said farmers have cultivated maize crops by taking loan from the bank and due to non-payement of amount, they are not in a position to deposit the loan amount. 5. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. 6. From perusal of the pleading as well as the material placed in the petition, it clearly reveals that the beneficiaries have sold their maize crops to the private persons and they claimed the consideration of their crop from the private persons. There is no indulgence of the of the government agency in selling of their crop to the private persons and they directly sold their crop to them. Some of the amount have also been paid to them by those persons who have purchased their crops. From perusal of the 5 document (Annexure-P/2) annexed with the petition, it reflects that the petitioner who projected himself to be the President of farmers association/ Paralkot Paid Agro Producer Company Limited have made a complaint to this Court. Further from the document annexed at Page No. 25 and 26 of the petition which is complaint made by the farmers to the Tahsildar, Pakhanjur, it also reflects that the petitioner is a farmer who is also one of the sufferer from the act of the private respondent who allegedly purchase their crop. Considering the status of the petitioner and the transaction made by them with the private persons to whom they sold their crops, it cannot be said that, it is a petition in the public interest but it can be said that it is a litigation of private interest for recovery of the amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it further appears that it is a pure commercial transaction between the petitioner, farmers and the private persons to whom they sold their crops for which they may approach before the competent court of law to settle their disputed question of facts and for that the present petition in the form of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ is not maintainable.
Decision
7. Considering the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition which is styled as 'Public Interest Litigation', we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6 8. The petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy and to approach before the authority concerned in accordance with law. 9. The instant PIL is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. The security amount deposited by the petitioner shall be forfeited. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice sagrika