1 2025:CGHC:48219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5004 of 2025 1 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Shri B.R. Sahu Aged About 32 Years In- Charge Of Procurement Center, Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Durgukondal, R/o Village- Durgukondal, District- North Baster Kanker C.G. 2 - Jageshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jagdishram Sahu Aged About 38 Years Computer Operator, Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Durgukondal, R/o Bhiragaon, District- North Baster Kanker C.G. 3 - Naresh Kumar Uikey S/o Shri Manesh Uikey Aged About 32 Years Bardana Prabhari Of Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Durgukondal, R/o Durgukondal, District- North Baster Kanker C.G. 4 - Ramsuram Jade S/o Shri Siyalram Aged About 33 Years In-Charge Of Paddy Procurement Center Konde Under Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Durgukondal, R/o Village Lalmarka, Post- Kodapakha, District- North Baster Kanker C.G. 5 - Devendra Kumar Rana S/o Shri Tejram Rana Aged About 35 Years Computer Operator Of Paddy Procurement Center Konde Under Control Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Durgukondal, R/o Village Surungdoh, Post- Kodekurse, District- North Baster Kanker C.G. 6 - Panku Uikey S/o Shri Navel Ram Aged About 30 Years Bardana Prabhari Of Paddy Procurement Center Konde Under Control Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Durgukondal, R/o Village Saraghughamre, Post- Michgaon Sadhu, District- North Baster Kanker C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd., 6th Floor, Tower- C Commercial Complex, C B D Section 21, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Dist.- Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker C.G. 4 - Commissioner Co-Operative/deputy Registrar Co Operative Societies, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker C.G. 5 - District Co-Operative Markfed Officer, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker C.G. 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Jagdalpur, Regional Office- Behind Jhankar Talkies, Kewra Munda Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar C.G. 7 - Branch Manager, Manager, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Jagdalpur, Branch Durgukondal, Distt. North Bastar Kanker C.G. 8 - Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Durgukondal, Through Its Prescribed Officer, Lamps Durgukondal, Distt. -North Bastar Kanker C.G. ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Akansha Verma, PL For Respondent-MARKFED : Mr. RK Jha, Advocate For Respondent-Bank : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19.09.2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.6. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondents authorities to provide the benefit of dryness of paddy. 10.3 That the respondents may kindly be directed to calculate the dryness percentage of paddy and to take appropriate action against responsible officer who has not lifted the paddy within the prescribed period as per policy and instructions issued time to time. 10.4 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Jagdalpur, by which, without any enquiry and without fixing the liability, a direction has been issued to complete the shortage of paddy by depositing 1359.59 Quintal Paddy for Durgukondal Center and 606.98 Quintal for Procurement center Konde within ‘07 days’ otherwise the amount shall be recovered from the employees of the society. Said order is issued to the Manager of 4 the society, but it has been mentioned that the employee of the society are responsible and the amount is to be recovered from them though no any order or notice has been given to the petitioners who are employees of the society and engaged only for paddy procurement season. For purchasing the paddy in the support price under the scheme of government, tri-partite agreement executed between the manager of the society, Co operative bank and the officer of MARKFED. Learned Counsel further contended that the petitioners have purchased the paddy from the agriculturists from 14th November 2024 to 31st January 2025 in support price as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as per the tri-parte agreement, the paddy is not lifted within the prescribed period and the purchase was made November to February and the paddy was lifted after 3-4 months which causes the loss of weight due to change of climate but the respondents authority instead of deciding the dryness directed the petitioners to deposit the paddy though there is no any shortage in counting the number of bags only the shortage of weight is caused due to dryness which is not more than 2-3%. The loss is caused due to dryness and illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondents department who have not lifted the paddy from the paddy procurement centers within time and also not provided the proper facility to keep the paddy in safe, it is respectfully submitted 5 that as per the agreement and as per the guidelines of the State Govt. the paddy shall be lifted and transported from the procurement center, and complete paddy is to be lifted upto 28.02.2025 as per the policy. The paddy was purchased in the month of November to February and the weight is reduced due to dryness of paddy which also causes the loss to the society, one side the department has not lifted the paddy within time and other side when there is any shortage then lodge the FIR/complaints against the society managers and employee, implicated them in criminal case without any fault though the petitioners since the closure of the center continuously making the request by sending the letters for lifting of the paddy but no action has been taken and all of sudden the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Jagdalpur wrote the letter to the Branch Manager Korrar on 11.07.2025 to recover the loss then the impugned order has been passed without availing the remedy for recovery of loss under the societies Act or sending the matter to the arbitration in light of the agreement. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforementioned prayers. 3. Learned counsels for the respective respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and submit that upon completion of upliftment and transportation of paddy purchased by petitioners at Paddy Procurement Centre, shortage of paddy was 6 found, petitioners could not able to give proper and satisfactory reply and therefore, the proceeding have been initiated. However, they do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on Clause 5.6 and 13 of tripartite agreement. They also do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on the order passed by this Court in similar writ petitions. 4. Learned State Counsel also submits that as the loss of paddy is causing loss of State exchequer, and therefore the Collector has issued a direction to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of amount towards the loss of aforementioned quantity of paddy or for recovery of aforementioned quantity of paddy, hence, the action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the copy of tripartite agreement enclosed along with this writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is mainly that no action can be taken against the petitioners in the individual capacity if for any reason there is shortage in the quantity of paddy and that too unless and until some inquiry is conducted. Clause 5.6 of the Agreement reads as under: 7 "5.6- विपणन संघ द्वा रा प्रदा य की गई रा शि सं उप र्जन की न्द्र (संमिवि) द्वा रा धा न विपणन संघ की की प्र प् होन परा ष रा शि की संली$ संमिवि की प्रदा य की$न ए अन्य अन'सं विगकी दा( सं रा शि की कीटौ*$ की र्ज ग$ । इसंकी उपरा भी$ सं.ली$ यग्य रा शि ष राहोन परा जिर्जली विपणन अमिधाकी रा$ द्वा रा छ.ग. रा ज्य संहोकी रा$ संसं यटौ3 अमिधाविनय 1960 की अग सं.ली$ की य हो$ हो' संक्ष न्य य लीय 5 प्रकीराण दार्ज विकीय र्ज ग ।" 7. Clause 13 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute between the parties, reads as under :- "13- आर्बि89ट्रेन :- इसं अन'8धा की विकीसं$ भी$ कीण्डि<=की सं सं8मिधा वि दा उत्पन्न होन की ण्डि@वि 5 वि दा की विनणय हो' जिर्जली 5 जिर्जली कीलीक्टौरा की विनणय अन्तिन् होग र्ज उभीयपक्ष( की न्य होग । कीलीक्टौरा द्वा रा दिदाय गय विनणय की अप$ली उभीयपक्ष( द्वा रा सं8मिधा जिर्जली की संभी ग$य आय'क् की की र्ज संकी ग$। 8. Under clause 5.6 of the Agreement, there is specific provision as to the recovery of the loss suffered by the Marketing Federation to be made from the concerned Society, wherein primarily, it is to be recovered from the commission and other heads for which the Society is entitled, for their services rendered in paddy procurement. If further amount is left, then the recovery proceedings is to be initiated under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 9. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, aforementioned relevant clauses of the agreement as also considering the copy of the policy formulated by the State Govt. which is placed before this Court for consideration, this writ petition 8 is disposed of with a permission to the petitioners to file the representation before the Collector in terms of Clause 14 of the Agreement within a period of ‘03 weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Collector, in turn, shall adjudicate upon the grounds raised by the writ petitioners and will also be at liberty to invoke Clause -14 of the proforma agreement and to pass order on the said representation at the earliest. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate in the proceedings of the inquiry, if any, conducted by respondent -authority. 10. In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being threatened for taking coercive action against them, if they fail to meet out the shortage of paddy, therefore, it is directed that if the petitioners submit the representation within stipulated time then no coercive steps shall be taken against them till decision on their representation. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.