1 2025:CGHC:11849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4368 of 2023 1 - M/s Prateek Food Product Through Its Proprietor- Prateek Singh Rai, S/o Shri Shivendera Singh Rai Aged About 26 Years, Proprietor Of M/s Prateek Food Product, R/o Village Raka, Post- Murmunda, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Rajnandgaon (Food Supply), District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Sangh Maryadit, Through Managing Director, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Sangh Maryadit, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Bharat Rajput, PL For Resp. No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.11 16:37:02 +0530 2 10/03/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 22/09/2023 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.3, wherein the grant of ्ቚोत्साहन राशि (incentives) to the petitioner’s mill for Custom Milling as per the policy issued by the State dated 25/11/2021, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to achieve his target of supplying 24,000 quintals. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed by the District Marketing Officer on the ground that the petitioner has failed to achieve his target of supplying 24,000 quintals, whereas, the actual shortage is only 36 quintals and the said shortage of 36 quintals was never supplied to the petitioner for custom milling due to scarcity of the grain in State Ware House, which is an admitted position and can be seen from communication dated 12/05/2023 issued by the District Marketing Officer. He would further submit that a policy was formulated by the State Govt. on 25/11/2021 (Annexure-P/10) for grant of incentives. Pursuance to the said policy, the Collector vide its communication dated 06/03/2023 directed respondent No.3/Managing Director to examine/consider the claim of the petitioner, and release the incentives in accordance with the policy. He would further submit that as per the clause 14.1 of the agreement of Custom Milling, the policy authorized the Collector to consider any dispute between the parties. The Managing Director/respondent no.3 has never taken any decision on the entitlement of incentives, no order has been passed pursuance to the 3 recommendations made by the Collector on 06/02/2023. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that prior to the issuance of the impugned order and after the order of Collector dated 06/02/2023, the petitioner himself approached before this Court by filing a WPC No. 3126/2023 and subsequently in pursuance to the order passed in the said writ petition, the District Marketing Officer issued a communication dated 22/09/2023 to the Deputy Collector, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition, hence, there was no occasion for the Managing Director to pass any order on the basis of communication dated 06/03/2023. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the communication dated 06/03/2023. 5. On perusal of the communication dated 06/03/2023 issued by the Collector, the Managing Director of the Board was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the policy for grant of incentives and to take steps in accordance with the policy. 6. It is not in dispute that pursuance to the communication dated 06/03/2023, the Managing Director has not passed any order till date. 7. Hence, the Managing Director of the Marketing Board/respondent is directed to take a decision on the entitlement of incentives to the petitioner in accordance with the policy dated 25/11/2021 after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to explain about his entitlement for incentives and to take necessary steps within a period of 50 days. 8. The petitioner is at liberty to apprise respondent No.3 about the order of 4 this Court. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul