1 2025:CGHC:24158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2901 of 2025 1 - Ravishankar Shriwas S/o Late Ramesh Shriwas Aged About 55 Years Occupation- Incharge Paddy Procurement Center Cum Incharge Society Manager At Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Kamti, R/o Village Kukdur, Police Station And Tehsil- Kukdur, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 9981977361 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower- C, Commercial Complex C.B.D., Sector 21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies Kabirdham, Tahsil And District Kabridham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Food Officer Collectorate Compound Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 7 - Nodal Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Branch Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal along with Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make an enquiry in the respect of that who is the responsible for the shortage of the stock of the paddy at paddy procurement center of the petitioner, thereafter takes action accordance with law against the responsible person for shorting the stock of the paddy, is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not take any action against the petitioner till conclusion of the enquiry, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 18.10.2024 respondent no. 1 framed the policy for paddy procurement during the kharif marketing year 2024-25, 3 wherein period of the purchase is 14.11.2024 to 31.01.2025. On 12.11.2024 respondent no. 1 amended the clause 15.8 & 15.9 of the paddy purchase policy 2024-2025. On 21.11.2024 respondent no. 2 directed to the respondent no. 5 to execute agreement with Society Mangers/ Incharge of Paddy Procurement Centers and Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank. It is further directed that the clause 2.8 of the proforma agreement may be amended as per the amendment of the paddy procurement policy. The petitioner is working as Incharge of Manager Society cum Incharge of paddy procurement center at Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Kamthi its registration no. 227. During kharif marketing year 2024-2025 petitioner purchased 100194.80 quintal paddy. It is most respectfully submitted that out of the total stock of the paddy transported by miller 34998.43 quintal, transported by collection center 62835.44 quintal paddy and remained 2360.93 quintal paddy, which laying as stock at paddy procurement center of the petitioner. On 21.11.2024 respondent no. 2 directed to the respondent no. 5 and on 19.02.2025 respondent no. 1 directed to the respondent no. 2 & 3 for lifting the whole stock of the paddy from paddy procurement centers up to 28.02.2025, but the stock of the paddy laying at paddy procurement center of the petitioner up to 01.06.2025. It is most respectfully submitted that as per the delivery order dated 04.04.2025 miller lifted the paddy lastly on 01.06.2025 from the paddy procurement center of the petitioner. That, the petitioner made representation before the respondent authorities on 02.04.2025 & 21.04.2025 for lifting the stock of the paddy immediately, wherein specifically requested that due to the non-lifting of the paddy weight of the stock of the paddy may reduce, due to the natural reason i.e. dryness. As per the clause of paddy procurement policy 2024-2025 and proforma agreement the respondent no. 6 failed to sent proposal to the Finance Department for granting dryness to the petitioner's society for occurring dryness for the stock of the paddy due to the non-lifting within the prescribed time. After lifting the whole stock of the paddy from paddy procurement center of the petitioner shortage of 2360.93 quintal paddy shown in the Online Report, due to the weight 4 loss of the stock of the paddy. It is most respectfully submitted that the respondent no. 3 to 7 fixed the personal liability of the petitioner for aforesaid shortage of the stock and directed to deposit the same within 7 days, otherwise threatening to lodging the FIR against the petitioner. The aforesaid direction and threaten is the contrary from paddy procurement policy as well as proforma agreement and arbitrary and malafide manner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the reason that shortage of stock of the paddy 2360.93 quintal at paddy procurement center of the petitioner due to the non-lifting of the stock of the paddy up to 28.02.2025. The respondent no. 2 to 5 lifted the paddy up to 01.06.2025 from paddy procurement center of the petitioner, resultantly due to the natural reason stock of the paddy dried, but the respondent authorities overlooked the said facts and fixed the personal liabilities of the petitioner and orally directed to deposit the same within 7 days, otherwise lodging the FIR against the petitioner, which is arbitrary, unjust, unwarranted and malafide. He also contended that earlier also similar actions were taken against which several writ petitions were filed in which this Court taking note of the clauses of agreement had permitted petitioner therein to avail remedy of arbitration under Clause 13 of the agreement and till decision of proceedings under the arbitration to be submitted before the Collector, interest of petitioner therein were also protected. He submits that case of petitioner are also on similar footing and therefore similar order may be passed in his favor. 5. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that upon completion of upliftment and transportation of paddy purchased by petitioner at Paddy Procurement Centre, shortage of paddy was found, petitioner could not able to give proper and satisfactory reply and therefore, the proceeding have been initiated. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on Clause 5.6 and 13 of tripartite agreement. He also does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on the order passed by this Court in similar writ petitions. Learned State counsel also submits that as the loss of paddy is 5 causing loss of State exchequer, and therefore the Collector has issued a direction to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of amount towards the loss of aforementioned quantity of paddy or for recovery of aforementioned quantity of paddy, hence, the action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 6. I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the copy of tripartite agreement enclosed along with this writ petition. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly that no action can be taken against the petitioner in the individual capacity if for any reason there is shortage in the quantity of paddy and that too unless and until some inquiry is conducted. 8. Clause 5.6 of the Agreement reads as under :- **5-6 foi.ku la/k }kjk iznk; dh xbZ jkf’k ls miktZu dsUnz ¼lfefr½ }kjk /kku foi.ku la?k dks izkIr gkus ij ‘ks”k jkf’k dh olwyh lfefr dks iznk; deh’ku ,oa vU; vuq”kkafxd enksa ls jkf’k dh dVkSrh dh tk;sxhA blds mijkar Hkh olwyh ;ksX; jkf’k ‘ks”k jgus ij ftyk foi.ku vf/kdkjh }kjk Nrrhlx<+ jkT; lgdkjh lkslk;Vh vf/kfu;e 1960 ds varxZr olwyh dk;Zokgh gsrq l{ke U;k;ky; esa izdj.k ntZ fd;k tk;sxkA ** 9. Clause 13 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute between the parties, reads as under :- "13. vkfcZVª’ku& bl vuqca/k ds fdlh Hkh dafMdk ls lacaf/kr fookn mRiUu gksus dh fLFkfr esa fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq ftys es ftyk dysDVj dk fu.kZ; vafre gksxk] tks mHk;i{kksa ds ekU; gksxkA dysDVj }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dh vihy mHk;i{kksa }kjk lacaf/kr ftys ds laHkkxh; vk;qDr dks dh tk ldsxhA ** 10.Under clause 5.6 of the Agreement, there is specific provision as to the recovery of the loss suffered by the Marketing Federation to be made from the concerned Society, wherein primarily, it is to be recovered from the commission and other heads for which the Society is entitled, for their services rendered in paddy procurement. If further amount is left, then the recovery proceedings is to be initiated under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 11.Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, 6 aforementioned relevant clauses of the agreement as also considering the copy of the policy formulated by the State Govt. which is placed before this Court for consideration, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Collector to decide the representation filed by the petitioner on 02.04.2025 and 21.04.2025 in terms of Clause 14 of the Agreement within a period of 03 weeks from today. Also, the Collector shall adjudicate upon the grounds raised by the writ petitioner. The petitioner are directed to cooperate in the proceedings of the inquiry, if any, conducted by respondent Authority. 12.Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima