1 2025:CGHC:8144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 80 of 2022 1 M/s Shiv Shankar Chawal Udyog Having Its Office At Village Chorbhatti, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Through Its Partner Shri Rajesh Patel, S/o Shri Pilaram Patel, Aged About 42 Years. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 Director, Directorate Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation (Mandi) Raipur, Beej Bhawan G.E. Road Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 Assistant (Upper) Director Cum Joint Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation (Mandi) Raipur, Beej Bhawan G.E. Road Telibandha Raipur, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.02.18 10:46:32 +0530 2 District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 General Manager, District Trade And Industries Centre Mahasamud, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 7 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Through Its Secretary ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Krishna Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 4,5 & 7. : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 17.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.5, by which, the respondent No.5 has declined to refund the amount of Mandi Sulk recovered from the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the light of provisions of the policy, the respondents are obligated to provide all incentives to the petitioner, out of which, most of the incentives have been granted, but not the exemption of Mandi Sulk on technical lapses. He submits that as per provisions of Mandi Sulk Me Chhut Niyam, 2014, the petitioner is entitled for exemption in Mandi Sulk from 01/11/2014 itself. In fact removal of such lacuna was merely a formality and therefore, the State Government itself has extended 3 benefits w.e.f. 01/11/2014. He further submits that in any case the order issued by the respondent No.5 is based on assumptions that the liability of Mandi Sulk has been recovered by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi and Mandi Board, per contra, would submit that the finding that the petitioner has collected fees from the customer has been given after asking the petitioner about the same by the concerned Mandi and hence, the finding that the petitioner has collected the fee from the customers is just and proper and the rejection of refund as sought for by the petitioner is with sufficient reason and there is no illegality in the rejection of the application. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order, particularly the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Additional Managing Director, CG Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Raipur. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that the authorities have observed that the petitioner has collected the fee from their respective customer/purchaser and as the petitioner has already collected the fee from their respective customers, no question arises to refund the same to the petitioner. It appears from the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 that the finding has been recorded without any examination and without observing the principles of natural justice and only on assumption that the petitioner has collected the fee from the customers, the application for refund has been rejected. 6. The order impugned does not reflect that any explanation sought from the petitioner and there is no consideration about the 4 explanation, if any, made by the petitioner. Refusal of the application of the petitioner for refund of fee is a non-speaking and unreasoned order that too without examining the fact as to whether the petitioner has collected the fee from their respective customers or not. 7. In view of foregoing, the impugned order passed by the respondent/No.5 dated12.10.2021 is quashed. 8. As a sequel, all the writ petition is allowed. However, the respondent/Mandi Board is directed to pass a fresh order by examining the fact as to whether the petitioner has collected the fee in question from their respective customers or not by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 9. The petitioner is also directed to produce the documentary evidence before the board showing that they have not collected the alleged fee from his customers. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti