1 2025:CGHC:51013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4327 of 2025 1 - Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Akhrapali Having Its Registration No. 305, Through Its Incharge Manager Lalit Kumar Rajak S/o Shri Paras Ram Rajak, Aged 40 Years, R/o Village Kanberi, Post Padaniya, Tahsil Deepka, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Of Food And Civil Supplies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Managing Director C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation 2 Limited, Cbd Complex, Commercial Block C, Sector 21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - District Marketing Officer C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Resp.No.1/State : Shri Soumitra Kesarwani, PL For Resp. No. 6 & 7 : Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/10/2025 The petitioner, by way of the present petition has challenged the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.4-Collector, Korba, district Korba (CG) whereby the respondent has refused to lift 302.80 quintals of paddy stored at the procurement centre of the petitioner society. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and is engaged in the work of procurement of paddy from the farmers. On 14.11.2024, a tripartite agreement was entered into between the petitioner, respondent No.7 and the District Cooperative Bank for procurement of the paddy from the farmers, as per the instructions and directions issued by the respondent No.1. Upon execution of the said agreement, the petitioner commenced the procurement work. 3 3. On 01.02.2025, during the inspection conducted by the Nayab Tehsildar, Dipka, certain irregularities were found in the functioning of the Society and an FIR was lodged against the responsible officer. Upon registration of the FIR, the working body of the petitioner Society was reconstituted and the work of procurement was successfully completed. 4. He submits that though the paddy was lifted from the Society, no order was issued for 302.80 quintals of paddy. Therefore, vide letters dated 14.02.202, 28.02.2025 and 24.03.2025 the petitioner Society requested for lifting of the remaining stock. The petitioner contends that non-lifting of the remaining paddy would cause financial loss to the society and also risk damage to the paddy due to prolonged storage. However, no steps were taken by the authorities. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPC No. 2034 of 2025 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 29.04.2025directing the authorities to lift the paddy after verifying the weight. The petitioner thereafter apprised the authorities for compliance of the said order, but instead of lifting the paddy, respondent No.4, in a most arbitrary manner passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 refusing to lift the paddy on the ground that the bags did not bear the stencil mark of the Society and that the paddy was not government stock and was of poor quality. The action of the authorities, it is urged, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the directions issued by this Court as well as against the interest of the Society and public at large. 4 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposes the submissions and contends that the impugned order dated 19.06. 2025 has been passed after due verification and inspection. It is submitted that the paddy stock at the petitioner’s procurement centre was found to be of substandard quality and the bags did not bear the stencil mark of the society indicating that it was not government procured paddy. 7. It is further submitted that on 11.01.2025, a physical verification was conducted by a committee headed by the Nayab Tehsildar, Dipka at the petitioner’s society and it was found that a shortage of 811 quintals of paddy existed. Based upon this report, an FIR was registered against the In-charge and Manager of the procurement centre at Korbi Chowk, Police Station Korba, under Sections 316(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 8. It is further stated that on 26.05.2025, another committee comprising the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Podi, Assistant Food Officer and Tehsildar, Pasan conducted a detailed verification and prepared a panchnama, against 302.80 quintals shown in the online record. The paddy found was not of good quality and none of the bags bore the Society’s stencil mark. It is thus submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is questionable and no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. On perusal of the record, it reveals that upon physical verification 5 conducted by respondent NO.4 at the petitioner’s procurement centre, the paddy bags were found without the stencil mark of the Society. It also appears that in the verification conducted by the Nayab Tehsildar, Dipka on 11.01.2025, a shortage of 811 quintals of paddy was detected and accordingly an FIR was registered. 11. Further, the subsequent inspection carried out on 26.05.2025 by the committee of the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Assistant Food Officer and Tehsildar, Pasan revealed that only 42.15 quintals of paddy were found available against the recorded 302.80 quintals, that the paddy was not of good quality and the bags did not bear stencil markings. Such findings clearly indicate discrepancies and deficiencies in the stock maintained by the petitioner Society. 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact regarding stock quantity and quality which cannot be adjudicated within the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order passed by respondent No.4 does not disclose any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.15 17:35:03 +0530