1 2025:CGHC:47379-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 649 of 2025 1. Vidya Prakash Jangde S/o Late Shri Rajkumar Jangde, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Vidyadih, Chouki- Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)........Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center- Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Laxman Prasad Jangde, S/o Late Shri Mangli Prasad Jangde, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Vidyadih, Chouki- Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)........Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center- Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Kumari Bai Jangde D/o Laxman, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki- Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)........Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center- Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Rajrani Jangde W/o Saukhilal Jangde, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki- Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)........Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center- Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Saukhilal Jangde S/o Tijauram Jangde, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki- Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:32:00 +0530 2 (C.G.)........Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center- Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Ganga Prasad Satnami S/o Sewa Das, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki- Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)........Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center- Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. Samar Bahadur Jangde S/o Sewa Das, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Vidyadih, Chouki- Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)........Agriculturist Belong To Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Okhar, Paddy Procurement Center- Okhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Civil Supply And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Director, Department of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Food Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. The Branch Manager, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Okhar, Registration No. 1052, Paddy Procurement Center, Okhar, District Bilaspur (C.G.).........… 3 (Note- The Respondent No. 8 (In WPC/3092/2020) Namely Shri Harihar Patel (Operator) Has Died During The Pendency of the Writ Petition.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents No.1 to 6/State. 2. By filing the instant writ appeal, the appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “i. set aside the order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure A/1) and allow the writ petition; ii. to pass an appropriate order(s) or direction(s) to respondent authorities to pay the sale amount of the paddy of the appellants/petitioners as per the quantity 4 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. iii. To grant any other relief, that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; and cost of the appeal may kindly be awarded to the appellant.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.3092/2020 (Vidya Prakash Jangde and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed, thereby upholding the action/decision of the respondents which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge were that the appellants/writ petitioners are residents of Village Vidyadih, Chowki Malhar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, and are agriculturists duly registered at the paddy purchase and collection center, Okhar. The State of Chhattisgarh had, for the year 2019- 2020, formulated a policy for the procurement of paddy. In accordance with the said policy, the appellants/writ petitioners 5 brought their paddy to the procurement center for sale, and tokens were duly issued to them. The appellants/writ petitioners were scheduled to deliver their paddy on 06.02.2020. On that date, however, respondents No.7 and 8 refused to weigh their paddy on the ground of non-availability of gunny bags. The appellants/writ petitioners were advised to return on 14.02.2020. Even on the said date, their paddy was not weighed, and they were directed to approach the center again on 19.03.2020. Despite repeated efforts by the appellants/writ petitioners between 20.03.2020 and 22.05.2020, their paddy remained unpurchased and was left dumped at the procurement center. Representations were made to respondent No.4 and the matter was also reported to the SDO (Revenue), Masturi, but no action was taken. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.3092/2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.07.2025. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPC No.3092/2020, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/writ petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, failing to appreciate the merits of the case and the enquiry report 6 submitted by the committee constituted upon the appellants’ complaint. The inaction of the respondent authorities in procuring the appellants’ paddy is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution. It is submitted that the appellants were duly registered under the Scheme of 2019–20 and were issued tokens to bring their paddy to the procurement centre. However, due to non-availability of gunny bags and technical difficulties at the centre, the paddy could not be sold, resulting in undue hardship. The responsibility to provide gunny bags rested with the State, and the appellants cannot be held liable for the resulting loss or deterioration of their paddy. Despite announcements by the Chief Minister and directions from the Special Secretary to complete procurement between 20th and 22nd May 2020, the appellants were denied sale on account of website issues and non-reflection of their names. The respondents’ failure to act as directed aggravated the appellants’ suffering and violated the Scheme, which allows a farmer to sell paddy three times. In view of the above, learned counsel submits that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed, directing the respondents to purchase the appellants’ paddy at the Minimum Support Price. He has placed reliance upon the judgment in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and others v. Parden Oraon, (2021) 16 SCC 384, to buttress his submissions. 7 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, submits that the appellants/writ petitioners’ claim is without merit. The procurement of paddy was carried out strictly in accordance with the Scheme of 2019–20, and all procedural requirements, including issuance of tokens and scheduling of delivery, were followed. Any delay or non-procurement was due to technical or administrative reasons beyond the control of the respondents, including temporary unavailability of gunny bags and website issues. It is further submitted that the State authorities acted reasonably and cannot be held liable for the appellants’ inability to sell their paddy. The appellants were repeatedly advised regarding delivery schedules and available facilities, and all directions issued by higher authorities were implemented to the extent feasible. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was correct and does not warrant interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 passed in WPC No.3092/2020. 10. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- 8 “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.” 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after a careful perusal of the record, including the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.3092/2020, we find no ground to interfere with the order under 9 challenge. The appellants/writ petitioners brought their paddy to the procurement center in February 2020 and were duly issued tokens in accordance with the Scheme of 2019–20. On physical examination, however, the paddy was found to be of substandard quality. The appellants/writ petitioners were duly informed about this fact and advised to take back their paddy. 12. Upon their complaint, a committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry report, along with statements recorded from the villagers, confirms that the appellants/writ petitioners were made aware of the quality of their paddy. Despite repeated opportunities to retrieve their produce, the appellants/writ petitioners failed to do so. In these circumstances, the respondent authorities cannot be held liable for the non-procurement of paddy. It is further observed that the learned Single Judge, after considering the Scheme of 2019–20, the enquiry report, and the relevant facts, has rightly concluded that the appellants/writ petitioners’ grievance does not warrant intervention by this Court. No illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional provisions has been made out against the respondents. 13. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru ) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu