2025:CGHC:29902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2637 of 2025 Vrinda Prasad Khunte S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Khunte Aged About 32 Years Occupa- tion Paddy Purchase In- Charge (Fad Prabhari) Prathmik Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Bhaskarapali Registration No. 887, Center Tarekela R/o Village Tarekela, Thana Basna, Tahsil And Block Pithoura District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Mahasanund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - District Co- Operative Markfed Officer Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Commissioner / Deputy Registrar Co- Operative Society Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - M/s Krishna Ric Mill Ma - 54142 Chorbhatthi Post Devkirari Block Pamgarh, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 6 - Mahaveer Rice Industries Ma- 542112 Sheorinarayan Road Akaltara Thana And Tehsil Akaltara District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 02.07.2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- a. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondent’s authority to life the paddy from procurement centres forthwith as per the number of bags. b. That , the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 5 and 6 to lift the paddy as per DO Letter dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) forthwith. c. That, the respondents may kindly be directed to calculate the dryness percentage of paddy and to take appropriate action against responsible officer who has not lifted the paddy within the prescribed period as per policy and clarification letter dated 12.11.2024. d. That this Hon’ble court may kindly be please to direct the respondent to consider and decide the representation of petitioner dated 05.05.2025, 14.05.2025 and 16.05.2025. e. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is against the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondents department who have not lifted the paddy from the paddy procurement center Tarekela of the Bhaskarapali Society and issued the DO letters on 18.03.2025 but more than 2 months has been laps the respondent No. 5 and 6 were not lifting the paddy and the Markfed is not cancelled the said DO letter till the date even not taken any action against the millers who were not lifted the paddy from the procurement center, but in the present case the center is closed for purchasing the paddy since 31.01.2025 and more than 4 months have been laps but till the date the paddy has not been lifted. Bhaskarapali Society having two Procurement center Bhaskarapali and Tarekela and about 3581/- quintals paddy is remain to be lifted from Tarekela center for which the DO were issued in the month of March 2025 when the Manager of the Society had filed the Writ petition (C) No. 1404/2025 before this court and the Markfed after issuance of the DO letters did not taken any care whether the paddy is lifted from the centers or not though Non lifting the paddy will cause the loss as number of times the season (Whether) is change and more than 3-4 times there is heavy rain in the Mahasamund District. 3) He submits that the paddy was purchased in the month of November to January and the weight is reduced due to dryness of paddy which also causes the loss to the society, one side the department has not lifted the paddy and other side when there is any shortage then lodge the FIR/complaints against the Paddy Procurement center in charge and implicated them in criminal case without any fault though the petitioner since the closure of the center continuously making the request by sending the letters than the D.O. has been issued on 18.03.2025 but the respondent No. 5 & 6 did not lifted the paddy reasons best known to them and the District markfed officer failed to comply the policy not cancelled the DO of respondent no. 5 & 6 till the date. Hence the present petition on the following facts and grounds. 4) Learned counsel for the Respondent objected the prayer made by the leaned counsel for the petitioner. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Considering the aforesaid aspects of the case and the submission made by the respective parties, this Court directs Respondent no. 3 to make decision to lift the paddy in question from the respective procurement centers within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7) With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is disposed of. 8) Certified copies as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza