1 2025:CGHC:22518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2274 of 2025 1 - Bharat Lal Nirmalkar S/o Shri Nilkanth Nirmalkar Aged About 51 Years Posted As Society Manager Tumgaon Of The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Tumgaon, Reg. No. 518, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur, Through Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Through Branch Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Tumgaon District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattigarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, 6th Floor, Tower C Cbd, Sector- 21 Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative And Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Mark-Fed Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 7 - The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 05/06/2025 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ to set aside the Impugned letter no./ 2025/14/ dated 03.04.2025 to the petitioner asking to transport the remaining amount of paddy i.e. 520.19 quintal (only 1.14% of total procurement), no paddy is left in society all are transported (Annexure P/1) and; 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ direction to declare that the damage, if any, caused to the paddy for the reason of failure of the 3 respondent authority to lifting the same on time would not be attributable to and recovered from the petitioner and; 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ direction to refraim the respondent authority for initiating any form of disciplinary/recovery proceeding or order/ any other coercive action against the petitioner; 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the Society Manager Tumgaon of the Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Tumgaon, Reg. No. 518, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund, C.G. and discharging his duty with utmost dedication and honesty. Subsequently, in the year 2024-25 the petitioner/Committee has been appointed as a sub-agent by giving the right to the petitioner/ Committee to purchase paddy at the support price by the government, under the contract. The Paddy has been purchased from registered farmers, after which the Marketing Union/ Markfed will make the entire transportation arrangement as per Clause 2 of the Contract and the paddy purchase rules of the government, as 4 per the period fixed by the contract. It is worth mentioning here that the entire harvested/procured paddy was not transported till February 2025, no paddy is left in society. As per rules/permission/direction given by the concerned respondent vide letter dated 18.10.2024 to petitioner/Committee to procure paddy from 14.11.2024 to 31.01.2025 and also directed not procure paddy having more then 17 per Cent moisture, a moisture content of 17 per cent in the procured paddy has been accepted during purchase by the petitioner/committee on direction of respondent as per clause 10.9 of direction, The said paddy should be picked up by the marketing association as early as possible, but the said rule is not followed and entire procure paddy was not transported till February 2025, the paddy becomes dry and 12 to 13 per cent of Moisture content in the procured paddy remains (Loss of 4 to 5 per cent of moisture), due to which the procured paddy gets dried, Hence Loss of Weight. There is a high possibility that there may be a reduction in the weight of 1 and 2 kg per bag, which has happened due to the negligence of the marketing association, despite the above reasons, the petitioner/Committee kept trying for transportation but due to non-availability of vehicle and other procedural facilities, transportation could not be done. Regarding this, the concerned was informed through telephone to the marketing association. The petitioner has informed the District Marketing Officer and other competent officers about the said problem that the stock of paddy more than the buffer limit had 5 been accumulated in the committee, out of which a total of 19600 quintals of paddy was in buffer in the month of January and the respondent authority are not lifting the paddy for more then one month which was informed. The remaining amount is lost due to loss of moisture, and the other reason for this is the late lifting of the paddy. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that in the fiscal years 2020-21 the respondents issued a letter dated 14.03.2022 regarding the dryness of 3% of moisture in paddy and its payments, however the same letter was followed in the fiscal year 2021-2022 and the it also be followed in fiscal year 2022-23 and 2023-2024 and if the same letter is read out in totality with the present case the no irregularity made out rather it is a gradual natural character of the paddy to lose moisture which result in loss of weight. And although in the current fiscal years 2024-2025 the respondent no 1 through letter dated 12.11.2024 stated that if the paddy is not lifted within one month then loss cause due to dryness a proposal is send for reimbursement of losses. according to clause 2 of the contract year 2024-25, as mentioned in the above paragraph, the primary responsibility of transporting paddy is of the marketing association/ union. According to clause 2 of the contract, if for any reason the marketing association is not able to transport the procured paddy within the stipulated time, then in such a situation the committee will transport the said paddy at its own expense and no advance amount will be given to the committee for the said work. Apart from this, there are many 6 other important procedures like obtaining permission from the concerned departments, signing the contract with Markfed, T.O., D.O. and Issue related to the G.P.S vehicle. It is a very difficult process for the committee to get the paddy transported, due to complex processes and problems like the availability of vehicle and manpower, and the collection centre not emptying in case of transportation of paddy and storage at right place and the long process of payment etc. The problem of lack of funds/ amount for transportation was also verbally informed to the concerned officer by the petitioner/Committee itself, but due to non-payment of the amount for transportation in advances and the above-cited reason, the transportation could not be done by the petitioner/ Committee. At this stage, it is very important to make the fact that in order to compensate for the loss in the procured paddy, the department should make a contract/insurances as per the Clause 9 of the contract for the procured paddy with the insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned letter no/2025/14dated 03.04.2025 to the petitioner asking to transport the remaining amount of paddy i.e. 520.19 quintal (only 1.14% of total procurement) and held liable the petitioner for the loss of paddy and although no paddy is left in society all are transported, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law. The impugned letter dated 03.04.2025 holding the petitioner liable for the loss of paddy and directing the petitioner liable for the loss of 7 paddy and directing transportation of only 990.95 quintals (constituting a mere 1.14% of total procurement) is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the terms of the standard contract executed between the petitioner Committee and the Marketing Federation/Union. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that issue involved in this case has already been decided in WPC 244 of 2025 and connected matters vide order dated 09.05.2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, he therefore, prayed to pass the similar order. 4. Learned State Counsel raised no objection to the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to similar order as passed in bunch of orders in WPC 2440/2025 and connected matters passed on 09.05.2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the agreement and the impugned letter dated 03.04.2025. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have issued a letter dated 03.04.2025 whereby the petitioner has been held liable for loss of weight of the paddy and he has been directed to transport the remaining amount of paddy i.e. 520.19 quintal (only 1.14% of total procurement). The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 09.05.2025 has disposed of the bunch petitions which were arose out of a common set of circumstances and involve substantially identical issues. 8 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant clauses of the agreement, and past practices followed by the State Government as reflected in its communications, this Court is of the opinion that coercive recovery action without first determining the liability through appropriate inquiry and invoking the agreed dispute resolution mechanism, is arbitrary and not sustainable. 8. Therefore, it is directed to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the District Collector in terms of Clause 13 of the agreement within 3 weeks from today. The concerned District Collector shall consider the representation of the petitioner, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of representation. Till such decision is taken by the concerned Collector, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letter dated 03.04.2025. It shall also be open to the Collector to consider the applicability of the Government’s own circulars and policy letters recognizing natural moisture loss in previous years for reimbursement. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima