2025:CGHC:59741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2134 of 2022 Narottam Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Soupatram Yadav Aged About 52 Years Society Manager, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Ganiyari (Regd. No. 891), R/o Village Ganiyari, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Mo. No. 8517831821. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Pokice Station Rakh, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur 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 - Deuputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.12.10 18:02:40 +0530 ___________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mrs. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent no. 5 : Mr. Vikram Sharma S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 09.12.2025 Heard. 1. Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is the In-charge of different Paddy Procurement Centres under the control of different Co-opeartive Societies in the districts. He has purchased paddy at the authorized Paddy Procurement Centre under the policy formulated by the State Govt. The paddy purchased by his was not transported by respondent No.3 and respondent No.5 within time prescribed under the policy, due to which, the stock exceeded above the buffer stock and in between there was untimely heavy rainfall causing water-logging at some places which was above one feet from the ground level, due to which, part of paddy procured by him has been submerged, causing damage and rotten also. Paddy also lost its weight as it was lying under the direct sunlight, due to loss of its moisture content. 2. It is contended that respondents No. 3 & 5 failed to transport the paddy within the time i.e. within 72 hrs. from the Paddy Procurement Centre. Cutoff date for purchasing of paddy as per the directives of the State Govt. was 28.02.2022 and under the policy of the State Govt., entire paddy from all the Paddy Procurement Centres is to be positively transported within one month from the cutoff date, but till date, the paddy purchased by the petitioner at the identified Paddy Procurement Centre is still lying under the open sky. In-charge of the Paddy Procurement Centre were personally called by respondents No. 4 & 5 in the office and they have pressurized the petitioner to fulfill the shortage of paddy, if any, in their respective Society and procurement centre and also threatened them that failing which, coercive steps will be taken against him. He contended that even if, for any reason, there is shortage in quantity of paddy stored at the Paddy Procurement Centre as compared to the total quantity of paddy supplied than that of purchase, then also, recovery is liable to be made from the Society and not from the individual employee of the Society. He referred to Clause 5.6 of the Agreement (filed as Annexure P-1 in WPC No.1873 of 2022) in support of his contention. He contended that as per Clause 5.6 of the Agreement, if there is any shortage, then recovery will be made from the amount of commission to be given and other heads of the Society and if further balance remains for recovery, then by initiating appropriate proceedings against the Society. None of the proceedings as provided under the Agreement has been initiated nor any inquiry was conducted by respondents No. 4 & 5 at any point of time to hold the petitioner responsible personally for causing loss/shortage of paddy. Unless and until any inquiry is conducted, concluding that petitioner is responsible for causing shortage of the paddy, no action can be taken against him in his individual capacity. He also contented that Clause -14 of the Agreement provides for arbitration proceedings to be initiated if there is any dispute. The petitioner being employee of the Societies has entered into agreement on behalf of the Society, but only in few cases, respondents have supplied copy of agreement and in other cases, agreement has not been provided to him and the same may be lying in custody of any of the respondent authority i.e respondents No. 4, 5 & 6. He also contended that now show cause notice is not being issued to the In-charge of Paddy Procurement Centre, but he is being called in their office and giving oral threat for making good the deficit. Respondents authorities are registering FIR against the petitioner without any enquiry. As per his information, 4 FIR are registered within the district -Mungeli and 3 FIR within District- Kawardha against In-charge of Paddy Procurement Centre individually. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State in respective cases would submit that the petitioners have not submitted any document but this petition has been filed only on the basis of apprehension of taking action against them. Hence, no relief can be granted to him. She also submit that as submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the employee of the Societies, he can very well approach to the Registrar, Co- operative Societies under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 4. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 adopted the submissions of learned counsel for the State. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the writ petition in which the copy of proforma agreement is placed on record. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly that no action can be taken against the petitioner in the individual capacity if for any reason there is shortage in the quantity of paddy and that too unless and until some inquiry is conducted. Clause 5.6 of the Agreement reads as under :- “5.6- विपणन संघ ቛኋरा ्ቚदाय की गई राशि सं उप्ቌन की न््ቖ (संमिवि) ቛኋरा धान विपणन संघ की की ्ቚप् हो न परा ष राशि की सं$ली& संमिवि की ्ቚदाय की&न ए अन्य अन)संविगकी दा* सं राशि की कीटौ,& की ्ቌग& । इसंकी उपरा भी& सं$ली& य ग्य राशि ष राहोन परा जि्ቌली विपणन अमिधाकीरा& ቛኋरा छ.ग. राज्य संहोकीरा& सं संयटौ4 अमिधाविनय 1960 की अग सं$ली& कीयहो& हो) सं्ቌ न्ययलीय 6 ्ቚकीराण दा्ቌ विकीय ्ቌग ।" 7. Clause 14 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute between the parties, reads as under : “14- आቜኌ቏ኔशन : इसं अन)बंधा की विकीसं& भी& कीቄኌ9:की सं संबंमिधा विदा उत्प्ቐ हो न की ቄኌ=वि 6 विदा की विनणय हो) जि्ቌली 6 जि्ቌली कीलीक्टौरा की विनणय अቌኌन् हो ग ्ቌ उभीयप्ቌ* की न्य हो ग । कीलीक्टौरा ቛኋरा दिदाय गय विनणय की अप&ली उभीयप्ቌ* ቛኋरा जि्ቌली की संभीग&य आय)क् की की ्ቌ संकी ग& ।"....... 8. Under clause 5.6 of the Agreement, there is specific provision as to the recovery of the loss suffered by the Marketing Federation to be made from the concerned Society, wherein primarily, it is to be recovered from the commission and other heads for which the Society is entitled, for their services rendered in paddy procurement. If further amount is left, then the recovery proceedings is to be initiated under the Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. The clauses mentioned in one of the Agreement, copy of which is singed by one of the petitioner- Dwarika Ratre (WPC No.1873 of 2022) along with respondents No. 5 & 6 is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent- State. However, they submit that in other cases, there is no signed agreement of the respective petitioners. 9. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, aforementioned relevant clauses of the agreement as also considering the copy of the policy formulated by the State Govt. which is placed before this Court for consideration, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before the Collector in terms of Clause 19.7 as per agreement dated 08.12.2020 within a period of 3 weeks from today. The Collector, in turn, shall adjudicate upon the grounds raised by the petitioner and will also be at liberty to invoke Clause -14 of the proforma agreement and to pass orders on representation within a further period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the proceedings of the inquiry, if any, conducted by respondent – Authority. 10. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being threatened for taking coercive action against him if he fail to meet out the shortage of paddy, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner if he submit the representation within specified time till decision on their representation. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza JUDGE