1 2025:CGHC:21867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2284 of 2025 1 - Bhagirathi Patel S/o Shri Dhasia Ram Patel Aged About 34 Years Posted As - Procurement Center Incharge Malidih 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 Dist- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur, Through , Manager , Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Tumgaon , Distt- Mahasamund Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur, Through, Branch Manager , Branch Tumgaon Of Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Tumgaon District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhattisgarh 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 Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Mark-Fed Officer, Mahasamund, District -Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 4 & 6 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/05/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “I. 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 reaming amount 3 of paddy ie 391.31 quintal (only 1.24% of total procurement), no paddy is left in society all are transported (Annexure P/1) and; II. 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 reasoned of failure of the respondent authority to lifting the same on time would not be attributable to and recovered from the petitioner and; III. That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ direction to refrain the respondent authority for initiating any from of disciplinary/recovery proceeding or order/any other coercive action against the petitioner; IV. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter bearing No. /2025/14 dated 03.04.2025 is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. He further submits that the capacity of Procurement Centre Incharge, was acting under the authority of the respondent agency during the Kharif Marketing Season 2024–25 for the purpose of procuring paddy from farmers at the 4 government-declared Minimum Support Price. He further submits that the petitioner functioned merely as a sub-agent and had no responsibility beyond the point of procurement. It was contended that due to the inaction and delay on the part of the respondent authorities in lifting the procured paddy within the stipulated timeframe, the moisture content in the paddy decreased from the accepted 17% to 12–13%, resulting in a natural weight loss which is scientifically recognized and beyond the petitioner’s control. Learned counsel further submitted that despite repeated representations and reminders, the respondents failed to take timely action or provide insurance coverage for the stock. It was emphasized that no paddy remains in the Society's possession, and hence, the direction to transport 391.31 quintals—barely 1.24% of the total procurement—is factually incorrect and unimplementable. Reliance was placed on Clauses 2, 5.6, 9, and 13 of the procurement agreement, which clearly demarcate the responsibility of lifting and risk after procurement to lie with the respondent agencies. Reference was also made to judicial decisions and previous orders from the 2023–24 season, wherein similar attempts to fasten liability on procurement agents were held to be unjustified. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned letter be quashed and the petitioner be absolved of any liability for the alleged loss. 5 3. 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 accordan State Government's decision. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondent - MARKFED 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. It is submitted that the date for lifting the paddy has been extended multiple times and most recently, it was extended through orders dated 19.02.2025, 01.03.2025, and 15.03.2025. As such, the grievance raised by the petitioner has largely been 6 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 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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:-- 7 (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 by 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 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 8 (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 petitioners are entitled to driage @1%, however, Central Government has wrongly calculated driage less than 1% of MSP. The State by impugned notices is attempting to 9 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.” 7. In the aforesaid case, the Court finds that the driage allowance, which would compensate for weight loss during storage and 10 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. 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. 8. 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 11 reimbursement is an inter-governmental matter and cannot be passed onto the petitioner. 9. 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 representation while passing a reasoned order within a further period of 90 days in accordance with law. 10. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat