1 2025:CGHC:53209-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5625 of 2025 M/s Banu Tendupatta Processor Through Proprietor Mohammed Faizan Khaleel S/o. Mohammed Khaleel Ur Rahman, Aged About 55 Years R/o. H.No. 11-23-1185, Telecom Colony, L.B Nagar, District Warangal, Telangana Through Power Of Attorney Holder- Chetan Raj Jaiswal S/o Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Cooperative Federation Limited, A-25 V.I.P. Estate Near V.I.P. Club, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Through Chairman, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T And D), Cooperative Federation Limited, Sector 24, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Managing Director, District Forest Produce Cooperative Union, Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Forest Officer, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Divisional Forest Officer, Raghunathpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Syed Majid Ali Advocate For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.01 11:32:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondents No.4 and 5. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to quash the arbitrary action on part of respondents whereby 2288.2 bags of Tendu leaves have been included in the calculation petitioner's dues/installment (ANNEXURE P/1) in the interest of justice. of 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to direct the respondents to recalculate the dues/installment on the basis of 1060.150 bags actually purchased by the petitioner. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh joint inspection of the disputed stock in the presence of the petitioner's representative and a member of the concerned society and the respondent authorities. 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action or recovery on the basis of the inflated calculation till lawful inspection and reassessment of dues is carried out. 5] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which is deem fit and proper.” 3. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of purchasing Tendu leaves from the respondent authorities for manufacturing Bidies. Respondent authorities issued a tender notice No. T.P.(2025)-1 dated 03.12.2024 inviting tenders for sale of Tendu leaves to be collected during the year 2025. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and his offer for Lot No. 910-B (Gudru Samiti) for the notified quantity of 3800 standard bags at the rate of ₹3,159/- per bag was accepted. Consequently, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 12.03.2025. 4. In compliance with the agreement, the petitioner deposited ₹30,01,050/- as security deposit. Pursuant thereto, cardholders of 4 Gudru Samiti, after obtaining oral consent from the petitioner, plucked Tendu leaves on 15.05.2025 which were brought to the Phad of Gudru Samiti. The petitioner processed and uplifted 1060.150 bags of Tendu leaves and stored the same in his private godown at Rajkheta, Wadrafnagar under the supervision of respondent authorities. Subsequently, on visiting Gudru Samiti for further collection, the petitioner found that Tendu leaves were already lying on the Phad without any instruction or consent from him. It was stated that due to the observance of Sushasan Diwas on 16.05.2025, all Samitis of Raghunathnagar Range were closed, making it impossible to store the leaves on that date. It was further alleged that certain persons from the adjoining State of Uttar Pradesh had sold inferior quality Tendu leaves at the Phad, rendering them unfit for Bidi manufacturing. 5. The petitioner lodged complaints before the respondents on 16.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 pointing out that 1228.50 bags of leaves lying at the Phad were of substandard quality and not plucked as per the agreement. However, vide letter dated 26.05.2025, respondent No.3 informed that on the basis of petitioner’s complaint, a spot inspection was conducted by a 12- member committee which found the leaves fit for sale, and directed the petitioner to take delivery within 48 hours. It is the grievance of the petitioner that as per Clause 4(V) of the agreement, inspection ought to have been conducted in the presence of the petitioner’s representative and members of the 5 Samiti, and a copy of the inspection report should have been supplied to the purchaser. In the present case, no such notice or report was given, rendering the inspection arbitrary and violative of the agreement terms. 6. Despite petitioner’s repeated representations dated 04.06.2025 and 01.07.2025 requesting a fresh inspection in his presence, the respondents proceeded to include the additional quantity of disputed Tendu leaves in calculating the petitioner’s due instalments, raising a demand of ₹72,28,424/- for 2282.2 bags. Under Clause 4(VI)(b) of the agreement, if the purchaser fails to take delivery within the prescribed time, the Federation is at liberty to dispose of such leaves through sale and recover any loss suffered. Therefore, the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to purchase leaves which are unfit for manufacture of Bidies. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. The respondents have acted in gross violation of the terms of the Purchaser’s Agreement as well as the constitutional principles of fairness and reasonableness. It is submitted that, the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser of Tendu leaves from the respondent authorities under the agreement dated 12.03.2025, cannot be compelled to purchase Tendu leaves which are unfit for manufacture of bidies. The action of the respondents in forcing delivery of substandard 6 leaves, not plucked in accordance with the agreement, is wholly unsustainable in law. The learned counsel further submits that, as per Clause 4(VI)(b) of the Purchaser’s Agreement, if the purchaser fails to take delivery of Tendu leaves within the stipulated period, the Federation is empowered to dispose of such leaves through sale and recover any consequential loss from the purchaser. Thus, the contractual framework itself provides for the mode of recovery, and the respondents have no authority to compel the petitioner to accept inferior quality goods against his will. 8. It is contended that, the impugned action of the respondents in including 2282.2 bags of Tendu leaves in the petitioner’s installment calculation is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the terms of the Purchaser’s Agreement. Clause 4(V) of the Agreement explicitly mandates that inspection of Tendu leaves declared unfit by the purchaser must be conducted in the presence of the purchaser’s representative and a member of the concerned Primary Society. In the present case, the inspection dated 26.05.2025 was conducted unilaterally, without any prior intimation or participation of the petitioner, rendering the said inspection report invalid in the eyes of law. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner had, through several written communications dated 16.05.2025, 19.05.2025, and 29.05.2025, specifically brought to the notice of the respondents that a large portion of the Tendu leaves available at Gudru Phad were unfit for 7 manufacturing of bidies and had been sourced from unauthorized locations across the State border. Despite these categorical objections, the respondents, without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing or representation, arbitrarily declared the stock fit for sale. It is further submitted that, under Clause 4(VI)(b) of the Agreement, in the event the purchaser refuses to take delivery of unfit leaves, the respondents are empowered only to dispose of such leaves through sale and recover any resultant loss. By compelling the petitioner to bear liability for goods never accepted or delivered, the respondents have clearly exceeded their jurisdiction and violated the express terms of the contract. 9. It is also urged that, the inclusion of inflated quantities and corresponding dues on the official portal, without issuance of any formal demand notice or speaking order, amounts to gross violation of the petitioner’s right to fair procedure under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such unilateral action not only infringes the petitioner’s contractual and statutory rights but also exposes him to coercive recovery proceedings without adjudication, which is impermissible in law. The learned counsel further contends that, the respondents, being statutory authorities under the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, are duty-bound to act in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner. Any deviation from procedural safeguards prescribed under the Act and the Agreement renders their action amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of 8 India. It is submitted that, the impugned action, being arbitrary and in violation of the procedural mandates of the said enactment, is subject to correction by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, as the matter involves abuse of statutory power rather than a mere contractual dispute. 10. It is further urged that, the petitioner has no other efficacious or alternative remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the controversy pertains to illegal exercise of statutory authority and violation of constitutional guarantees. The learned counsel also submits that, the impugned action of the respondents infringes the petitioner’s fundamental right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as compelling him to purchase unfit goods directly affects his livelihood and business operations. Lastly, it is contended that the respondents, being instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, are bound by the constitutional mandate to act fairly, reasonably and in good faith. Their arbitrary conduct in the present case is violative of settled principles of administrative law and warrants interference by this Court. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 submits that though the petitioner was the successful bidder in the tender process for purchase of Tendu leaves of Lot 9 No. 910-B (Gudru Samiti), he failed to perform his contractual obligations in terms of the agreement executed between the parties. It is contended that after uplifting a portion of the Tendu leaves, the petitioner left several bags uncollected in the forest area, despite repeated directions from the departmental authorities. It is further submitted that, in view of the petitioner’s complaint regarding the quality of the remaining leaves, a 12- member Committee was duly constituted by the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading & Development) Cooperative Federation Limited to inspect the stock lying at the Phad. Upon inspection, the Committee found the quality of the Tendu leaves to be satisfactory and fit for sale. However, despite such confirmation, the petitioner willfully failed to take delivery of the remaining stock within the prescribed period, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the Purchaser’s Agreement. 12. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not deposited any instalment amount payable under the contract till date and is in default of his financial obligations. It is contended that on 15.10.2025, a communication letter was duly issued to the petitioner by the respondent authorities directing him to arrange transportation of the Tendu leaves and to deposit a sum of ₹5,77,000/- towards transportation charges, failing which necessary action would be taken in accordance with the agreement. However, the petitioner did not respond to the said communication nor complied with the contractual requirement. It 10 is therefore submitted that the petitioner, having failed to fulfill his contractual and financial obligations, cannot now be permitted to allege arbitrariness or illegality against the respondents, who have acted strictly in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964. 13. Learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that the State of Chhattisgarh and its officers are only formal parties to the present proceedings, as the dispute primarily concerns the contractual obligations between the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3. It is stated that the functions relating to tender, collection, inspection, and sale of Tendu leaves fall exclusively within the domain of the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T&D) Cooperative Federation Limited and its subordinate societies. The State has no direct role in the execution or enforcement of the agreement. Accordingly, the main contesting respondents are respondents No.1 to 3, and the State, being a pro forma party, shall abide by any order passed by this Court. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds no substance in the 11 contentions raised by the petitioner. The admitted position is that the petitioner, being the successful bidder under the agreement dated 12.03.2025, was bound to lift the entire quantity of Tendu leaves allotted under Lot No. 910-B of Gudru Samiti within the time stipulated in the contract. It is also not in dispute that after uplifting a portion of the stock, the petitioner failed to take delivery of the remaining quantity despite repeated communications and opportunities extended by the respondent authorities. 16. The record further reveals that on the petitioner’s own complaint regarding the alleged inferior quality of leaves, a 12-member Committee was constituted by the competent authority, which conducted spot inspection and found the Tendu leaves to be fit for sale. The petitioner has neither produced any material to discredit the findings of the said Committee nor shown that any prejudice was caused to him on account of the alleged absence of notice. The mere assertion that inspection was not conducted in his presence, without substantiating any procedural violation resulting in prejudice, cannot invalidate the inspection proceedings conducted by a duly constituted Committee. 17. This Court also finds merit in the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not deposited any installment or complied with the financial obligations under the agreement. The communication dated 15.10.2025 calling upon the petitioner to pay ₹5,77,000/- towards transportation charges was never 12 responded to, indicating his continued non-compliance. The petitioner, being a party to a commercial contract, cannot avoid his contractual liabilities by invoking writ jurisdiction. The terms of the Purchaser’s Agreement clearly provide that in the event of failure to take delivery of the stock, the Federation may dispose of such leaves and recover consequential losses. The petitioner, having voluntarily entered into the agreement with full knowledge of its terms, cannot seek to rewrite the same under the guise of constitutional protection. 18. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to enforce purely contractual rights unless there is a violation of statutory or constitutional mandate, which is not demonstrated in the present case. The action of the respondents, being in conformity with the contractual provisions and supported by record, cannot be termed arbitrary or unreasonable. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned action of the respondents does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu