1 2025:CGHC:56509-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 813 of 2025 Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Utarda Having Its Registration No. 3051, Through Its Incharge Manager Samund Singh S/o Shri Bhuwan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Utarda, Post Utarda, Tahsil Hardibazar, District Korba C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Director Directorate Of Food And Civil Supplies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - Collector Korba, District Korba C.G. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.20 17:38:29 +0530 2 5 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 6 - Managing Director C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, C B D Complex, Commercial Block C Sector 21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 7 - District Marketing OfÏcer C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, Korba, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : Shri Harshal Chauhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.11.2025 1. Heard Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State and Shri Harshal Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ 3 petitioner assailing the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3978/2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The facts of the present case are that the writ petitioner/ appellant is a Society registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and engaged in procurement of paddy from farmers. A tripartite agreement was executed on 14.11.2024 between the petitioner, Respondent No.7 and the District Cooperative Bank pursuant to the directions of Respondent No.1, and the petitioner commenced procurement accordingly. During an inspection on 23.01.2025 by the Nayab Tahsildar, Pali, certain irregularities were allegedly found, leading to registration of an FIR against the then responsible ofÏcer, whereafter the working committee of the Society was reconstituted and the procurement work was duly completed. However, although the procured stock was lifted, no lifting order was issued for 360 quintals of paddy, compelling the petitioner to address repeated representations dated 13.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 24.03.2025 requesting lifting of the remaining stock, as continued storage would cause financial loss and 4 deterioration of the paddy; yet, no action was taken by the authorities, giving rise to the present writ appeal. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “xxx xxx xxx 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of the record, it reveals that when physical verification was conducted by respondent No.4 of the stock of paddy at the procurement center of the petitioner has found that the bags of paddy stored in the procurement center of the petitioner do not bear stencil mark. Further it reveals that on 11.01.2025, when physical verification was conducted by the verification committee headed by the Nayab Tehsildar at the petitioner's society and by the Committee, it was found that there is shortage of total 811 qt of paddy in the society and the same was found missing. 6. It further reveals that on 26.05.2025, a Committee 5 of Senior Agriculture Development OfÏcer, Podi, Assistant Food OfÏcer and Tehsildar Pasan conducted a physical verification at the procurement center and prepared a panchnama regarding the same and found that total 42.15 qt of paddy has been found less against the quantity which is being shown available in the online record as 840 qt which is not of good quality and in the bags available at the center no stencil mark of the society has been found. The said conduct of the petitioner's society is malafide in nature. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the petitioners challenging the impugned order for quashment passed by respondent No.4, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed." 6 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the law applicable to the facts of the case and suffers from non-consideration of material aspects, inasmuch as the physical verification clearly revealed that only 42.15 quintals of paddy were found short against the online balance of 840 quintals, and therefore the respondents could have lifted the remaining quantity in compliance with the earlier directions of this Hon’ble Court. It is urged that the Single Judge erred in holding that the relief sought cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction despite the fact that this Court had specifically directed the respondents, in the previous round of litigation, to weigh and lift the paddy, but the respondents acted contrary to such observations. It is further submitted that the assumption that the bags did not bear the stencil of the Society and hence the paddy was of inferior quality is unfounded, arbitrary and unsustainable. Counsel contends that non-lifting of paddy is causing substantial financial loss to the petitioner-Society and will inevitably lead to deterioration of the stock, thereby adversely affecting the public exchequer as well. Therefore, the inaction of the respondents is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the larger public interest, warranting interference in 7 this writ appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and contended that the writ petitioner/appellant has filed the instant petition against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 4 Collector, Korba whereby the Respondent No. 4 on physical verification of the stock of paddy at the procurement center of the petitioner has found that the bags of paddy stored in the procurement center of the petitioner do not bear stencil mark and is not of good quality. It is submitted that on 11.01.2025 physical verification was conducted by the verification committee headed by the Nayab Tehsildar at the petitioner's society and by the committee it was found that there is shortage of total 811 qt of paddy in the society. Based upon the said report, an FIR was also registered against the Incharge of the paddy procurement center and the Manager by the OfÏce of Cooperative Development OfÏcer, Development Block Podi before the Korbi Chowki, thana Korba under Section of 316(4), 3(5) of the BNS stating that on the physical verification conducted at the society of the petitioner total 811 qt of paddy stock has been found missing. It is further submitted that on 26.05.2025 a committee of Senior Agriculture 8 Development OfÏcer, Podi, Assistant Food OfÏcer and Tehsildar Pasan conducted a physical verification at the procurement center and prepared a panchnama regarding the same and found that total 42.15 qt of paddy has been found less against the quantity which is being shown available in the online record as 840 qt which is not of good quality and in the bags available at the center no stencil mark of the society has been found. It is stated that no prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioner warranting appellate interference with the well-reasoned order of the Hon’ble Single Bench. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. After hearing the parties and examining the record, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The physical verifications conducted on 11.01.2025 and 26.05.2025 clearly established substantial shortage of paddy, mismatch between online and physical stock, absence of stencil markings on bags, and doubts regarding the quality and genuineness of the stock. These findings remain uncontroverted. In such circumstances, the respondents were justified in declining to lift the remaining paddy, and the relief sought 9 requiring adjudication of disputed facts relating to stock and quality cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction. The contention of the appellant that only 42.15 quintals were short is untenable in view of the repeated discrepancies found. We find no illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. 9. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib