1 2025:CGHC:20308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1962 of 2022 Dharmendra Khare S/o Chamruram Khare, Aged About 47 Years Posted As Society Manager- Aadim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Tetalkhuti, Registration No.-66, Upparjan Kendra- Tetalkhuti, R/o Village Tetalkuti, Vikaskhand- Mainpur, District Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Gariyabandh, District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The S.D.O. (Revenue), Mainpur, District Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex Cbd, Sector 21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Gariyabandh, Police Station, Tahsil And District Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.03 17:06:41 +0530 2 6 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Gariyabandh, Police Station, Tahsil And District Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.4 and 6 : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 02.05.2025 1 Heard Ms. Pragati Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 6. 2 The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief/s:- “a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue setting aside impugned Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential/incidental actions initiated 3 thereto, in the facts & circumstances of the case. and in the interest of justice. b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to strictly abide by the letter/rule of law, while dealing with the case of the Petitioner. c. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. d. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3 At the outset, learned counsel for the parties would submit that that the present petition is identical to WPC No.2805 of 2021 (Gyanendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) and other connected petitions, which were disposed of by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2021, as such, instant writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in WPC No.2805 of 2021 and other connected matters. 4 It has been mentioned that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.2805 of 2021 has made an observation in para-11, which reads as follows:- “11. The submissions of the petitioners and the respondents would show as on date that the dispute arisen about the performance of the agreement is quite logical that if the 4 paddy was not transferred because of the fault of Marketing Federation and caused loss and further loss by rain it cannot be pass on to head of the petitioners. The submission of the petitioners that in absence of the DO/TO the paddy could not be transferred is also required to be examined to finalize the liability. All these issue are required to be adjudicated at the same time the petitioners cannot be driven to a corner by arm twisting method to lodge FIR for any loss which might have been caused. Therefore, under the facts of this case, to arrive at the finding of fact about failure of performance of agreement on either part of the party i.e. procurement centre or State Marketing Federation as per Clause 14 the issue is referred to the Collector of the particular district. The Collector shall adjudicate the issue after the evidence is adduced about the non performance of part of the contract by either of the parties and shall thereafter decide it accordingly. The petitioners shall be at liberty to invoke clause 14 i.e. Arbitration Clause along with the memo of their claim for 2020- 21 within a period of 2 weeks and the same shall be concluded with a reasonable time. The petitioners shall also be entitled to file any interim prayer in the circumstances of this case to claim interim due or any other relief to arrest further loss of paddy.” 5 5 Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPC No.2805 of 2021, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No.2805 of 2021. 6 Accordingly, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in WPC No.2805 of 2021 (Gyanendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh