1 2025:CGHC:16882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1666 of 2022 1 - Ramdas Banjare S/o Shri Chaitram Banjare Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Incharge, Paddy Procurement Center Guruwaindabri, R/o Village And Post Louda, Police Station And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Mo.No. 9617918039 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower- C, Commercial Complex Cbd, Sector 21, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Mungeli, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Mungeli, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer and Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.06 20:00:16 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has filed this petition challenging the notice dated 21.3.2022. Attention has been drawn towards the reference according to which the consideration of report dated 24.3.2022 has been shown in this notice whereas the impugned notice was issued on 21.3.2022. 2. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the notice dated 21.03.2022 issued by respondent no. 4 (Annexure-P/1), is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 21.03.2022 issued by respondent No.4 is arbitrary and violation of natural justice and thus it is liable to be quashed. The said notice was issued in respect of shortage of paddy in personal capacity to the petitioner, which is violation of Clause 5.6 of the agreement, which reads as under: "Clause 5.6- विपणन संघ द्वारा प्रदाय की गई राशि से उपार्जन के न्द्र (सविति) द्वारा धान विपणन संघ को क प्राप्त होने पर ेष राशि की सूली 3 सविति को प्रदाय कीन एं अन्य अनुसांविगक दो से राशि की कटौी की र्जाेगी। इसके उपरां भी सूली योग्य राशि रहने पर जिर्जला विपणन अतिधकारी द्वारा छ.ग.राज्य सहकारी सोसायटी अतिधविनय 1960 के अंग सूली कायाही हेु सक्ष न्यायालय ें प्रकरण दर्ज विकया र्जाेगा।" The impugned notice was issued to the petitioner without making any inquiry in respect of the contents, which is violation of the principle laid down by this Court in WPC No. 1397/2020 (Shiv Kumar Shriwas v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 17.07.2020. Respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice in personal capacity, which is arbitrary. In a similar case, this Court has quashed the notice on 25.11.2021 in WPC No. 4767/2021 (Kanhaiya Lal Dansena v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Shortage of stock of the paddy is the natural reason, which is beyond control of the petitioner. Stock of the paddy sub-merged under rainy water and destroyed or rotten due to failure in lifting of stock of the paddy by respondent No.5. As per clause 9 of the aforesaid agreement, due to the loss of the natural reason, loss will be recovered from insurance policy, despite that respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to deposit the said loss, which is arbitrary. As per the terms of the agreement, there is no clause of lodging First Information Report. As per clause 14 of the agreement, if any dispute arises then the same will be referred to an Arbitrator, therefore, the impugned notice and the order issued by the respondent No.4 is bad in law. 4 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that for challenging a notice writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. Having considered the pleading of the petitioner and the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it can be said that there is an anomaly and it would not be material in quashing the impugned notice. May be, it is due to typographical error or any clerical defect. The sum and substance is that it is a notice and for challenging a notice writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 7. The matter is pending since 1.4.2022 and vide order dated 5.4.2022 this Court has passed an order directing that the departmental action as contemplated in the impugned notice may continue against the petitioner, however, no final order shall be passed in the same until the next date of hearing. As such, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents authorities to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is also at liberty to file relevant documents if the same have not been filed earlier and the authorities concerned are directed to decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. The mater relates to 5 purchase of paddy pertaining to kharif year 2021-22. The petitioner was working as Incharge of Paddy Procurement Centre, Guruwaindabri, District Mungeli under control of the Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Guruwaindabri, District Mungeli, registration No.584. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings have been completed, but, due to the order of this Court dated 5.4.2022, final order has not been passed. 9. Be that as it may, the respondents authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate orders as the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents authorities to pass appropriate orders. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per the relevant agreement executed between the parties. 10. The interim order dated 5.4.2022 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh