-1- 2025:CGHC:32235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3092 of 2020 1 - Vidya Prakash Jangde S/o Late Shri Rajkumar Jangde, Aged About 48 Years Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Laxman Prasad Jangde, S/o Late Shri Mangli Prasad Jangde, Aged About 52 Years Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki- Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Bai Jangde D/o Laxman, Aged About 35 Years Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajrani Jangde W/o Saukhilal Jangde, Aged About 50 Years Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Saukhilal Jangde, S/o Tijauram Jangde, Aged About 53 Years Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ganga Prasad Satnami, S/o Sewa Das, Aged About 53 Years Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Samar Bahadur Jangde S/o Sewa Das, Aged About 48 Years Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Civil Supply And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Food Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Branch Manager, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Okhar, Registration No. 1052, Paddy Procurement Center, Okhar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Shri Harihar Patel, Aged About 44 Years Working As Operator At Branch Manager, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Okhar, Registration No. 1052, Paddy Procurement Center, Okhar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Bhuvaneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.07.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for -3- the records of the case of the petitioners for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to respondent authorities to accept the paddy of the petitioners and they must be paid the sale amount of the paddy immediately as per the quantity mentioned in their "Paddy Incoming Token" (Annexure P-1 (Colly) and at the rate of Minimum Support Price (MSP) of Rs. 2,500/- per quintal as prevalent and declared by the State Government for the years 2019-2020. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents L to award the other expenses of petitioners like paddy transporting charges, paddy loading and unloading charges and gunny bags (bardana) charges etc. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2) Mr. Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are residents of Village Vidyadih, Chowki Malhar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, and are agriculturists registered at the paddy purchase and collection center Okhar. He would further submit that the State of Chhattisgarh had formulated a policy for the procurement of paddy for the year 2019-2020. In accordance with the said policy, the petitioners brought their paddy to the procurement center for sale, and tokens were duly issued to them. The petitioners were scheduled to deliver their paddy on 06.02.2020. He would submit that on 06.02.2020, the petitioners transported their paddy to the procurement center, but respondents No.7 and 8 refused to weigh it on the ground of non-availability of gunny bags. The petitioners were then advised to return on 14.02.2020. However, even on the -4- said date, their paddy was not weighed, and they were asked to approach the center again on 19.03.2020. It is contended that the paddy remained dumped at the center, and despite repeated approach between 20.03.2020 to 22.05.2020, the petitioners’ paddy was not purchased. The petitioners made a representation to respondent No.4 and also reported the matter to the SDO (Revenue), Masturi, but no action was taken. It is submitted that respondents No.7 and 8 have failed to justify their conduct and there was no valid reason for denying the purchase of the petitioners’ paddy. Hence, a direction may be issued to the respondents to pay the Minimum Support Price of Rs. 2500/- per quintal to the petitioners. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State opposes the submission made by Mr. Rajput. It is submitted that as per the policy of the year 2019-2020, a registered farmer was allowed to sell paddy at the procurement center only on three occasions. It is submitted that respondents No.7 and 8 physically examined the paddy brought by the petitioners and found it to be of substandard quality. Therefore, respondent No.7 rightly refused to purchase it. It is further submitted that an enquiry was conducted, in which it was confirmed that the paddy brought by the petitioners was of substandard quality. The petitioners were duly informed and advised to take back their paddy, but they failed to do so. 4) It is also submitted that the enquiry report is annexed as Annexure R/1. It is argued that the petitioners themselves are responsible for the loss, and hence, -5- the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 6) From a perusal of the documents on record, it is apparent that the petitioners had brought their paddy to the procurement center in February, 2020. 7) On physical examination, the paddy was found to be of substandard quality. The petitioners were duly informed and advised to take back their paddy. Upon their complaint, a committee was constituted and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report confirm that the petitioners were informed regarding the substandard quality of paddy. The committee had also recorded statements of villagers in this regard. 8) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners failed to take back their paddy despite being duly informed about its quality, the respondent authorities cannot be held liable for the non-procurement. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim