1 2025:CGHC:41851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4409 of 2025 1 - Tejram Sahu S/o Ramat Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years Assistant Society Manager, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kiritpur, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipuir, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Bemetara Collectorate, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation ( Markfed ), Through- Its Secretary, Headquarter, Atal Nagar Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Marketing Officer Markfed, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Cooperative Central Bank Durg Through- Its Chief Executive Officer, Opposite Government Hospital, Ge Road, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Durg, Opposite Government Hospital, Ge Road, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, P.L. For Respondent-Markfed : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.03 11:02:46 +0530 2 Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief(s);- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to ensure strict compliance of the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 1833/2025 vide order dated 29.04.2025 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and om circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also be granted to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an officer of the cooperative society engaged in procurement of paddy from the registered agriculturists. Under the scheme of paddy procurement, the paddy has to be lifted forthwith immediately the same is stacked in the society's procurement center. Unfortunately, the paddy in excess of the buffer quantity permissible for the society remained unlifted by MARKFED for an inordinate period and therefore the same remained exposed to the forces of nature and weather conditions. The delay in lifting has resulted in loss of moisture due to dryness and thus there is bound to be a loss in aggregate weight of the paddy procured. Despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, no steps have been taken by the respondents in redressing the grievances and thus the petitioner apprehends coercive action. It is for the said reason that the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court for issuance of appropriate directions. The said writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 29.04.2025 3 directing the state government as well as the central government to consider the issue and prescribe the permissible extent of permissible dryness. The petitioner submitted its representation duly communicating the said order, however despite the same no decision has been taken till date. On the contrary, the petitioner has been issued the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 directing the petitioner to deposit the cost of paddy to the extent of difference of weight between the paddy procured and the paddy lifted. The said shortage is not on account of any fault attributable to the petitioner, but then the same has resulted owing to loss of moisture and dryness. The petitioner cannot be fastened with the said liability as the said shortage is not on account of any act by the petitioner. In fact, the respondent authority did not even issue notice to the petitioner before issuance of the said order directing the petitioner to deposit the amount. The impugned order dated 05.07.2025 is wholly arbitrary and violative of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. On perusal of the order dated 29.04.2025 in WPC No. 1833/2025, this Court has held in operative paragraph as under:- 17. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and submissions advanced by the parties, this Court directs the petitioners 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 their grievances within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of 4 this order and the authorities concerned, in turn, shall consider and decide the said representations while passing a reasoned order within a further period of 90 days in accordance with law. 6. Upon the direction of this Court in the order dated 29.04.2025, the petitioner has made representation before the authorities concerned on 31.05.2025. 7. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the representation submitted by the petitioner in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court is still pending consideration before the respondent authorities and a final decision in light of the direction issued by this Court is yet to be taken. Moreover, the Central Government as well as State Government is still to finalize the loss of moisture content which is to be permitted in the paddy procurement process for the Kharif Season 2024-25. However, in the meantime, the respondent No. 6 issued the order dated 05.07.2025 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 22,61,452 towards loss of 983.24 quintal of paddy. As such the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti