1 / 4 2025:CGHC:49982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5215 of 2025 1 - Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Borgaon, Block District Kondagaon C.G. Through Samiti Manager Baldev Netam, S/o - Roopchand Singh Netam, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Ravanbhatapara, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 2 - Baldev Netam S/o Roopchand Singh Netam Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Ravanbhatapara, Farsagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Union of India Through - Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department, Krishi Bhawan New Delhi 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department of Co-Operative Society, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District - Raipur, C.G. 4 - Collector Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. 5 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited 6th Floor Tower-C, Commercial Complex Cbd Sector 21 Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur, C.G. 6 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipdan Sangh Maryadit District Kondagaon C.G. 7 - Assistant Registrar/ Commissioner Cooperative Societies Kondagaon District Kondagaon, C.G. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.10.10 11:26:30 +0530 2 / 4 8 - Nodal Officer Zila Sahakri Kendriya Bank Maryadit District Kondagaon/ Bastar C.G. 9 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Jagdalpur, Behind Jhankar Talkies, Kewramunda Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 10 - Nodal Officer/ Assistant Commissioner Co-Operative District - Kondagaon C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate for UOI For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 08/10/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed being aggrieved with the action of the respondent authorities for not deciding the representation of the petitioner despite the direction issued by this Court and have issued the recovery order dated 19/08/2025 as well as the order dated 19/08/2025 issued by Respondent No.9 whereby the demand has been raised with regard to shortage of paddy. 2. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioners have preferred the writ petition bearing WPC No.3351 of 2025 and this Court has disposed of the said writ petition and has observed thus in para 15 & 16 which are reproduced hereinbelow:- 15. 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 copy of this order before the Central 3 / 4 and the State Government 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 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. 16. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioners have submitted the representation before the respondents, however, the same has not been decided and instead of deciding the same the respondent authorities have issued the impugned order dated 19/08/2025 and impugned letter dated 19/08/2025 and stated that 772.52 quintals of paddy is shortage and directed the petitioner society to deposit the amount of the said remaining shortage of paddy within 07 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the aforesaid order dated 19/08/2025 is without jurisdiction as the policy as amended by the notification dated 18/10/2024 and also the notification dated 12/11/2024 because as per the notification there is no any provision for the recovery of the amounts in respect of the deficit weight of paddy due to loss of moisture especially when the respondents No.5 & 6 have not lifted the paddy on time. He would lastly contend that in view of the above, the order dated 19/08/2025 (Annexure P/1) may be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they are ready to 4 / 4 decide the representation/case of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, it is directed that the concerned respondent authorities shall decide the case/representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Till the case is decided no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner and after the decision of the State and Central authorities, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu