1 2025:CGHC:59350-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 894 of 2025 Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Kulhariya Having Its Registration No. 308, Through Its Incharge Manager Shani Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hariram Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village - Kulhariya, Post - Pali, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(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 (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.) 5 - Registrar Co-Operative Socieites, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Managing Director C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federaton Limited, C.B.D. Complex, Commercial Block C, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 7 - District Marketing Officer C.G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federaton Limited, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.09 10:37:35 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Priyanshu Ojha on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent/State as well as Mr. Priyanshu Ojha on behalf of Mr. Rakesh, learned counsel for respondent for respective respondent. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3731 of 2025 (Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 813/2025 (Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 20.11.2025, observing as follows : 3 “8. After hearing the parties and examining the record, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. on 11.01.2025 and The physical verifications conducted 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 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. ” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 813/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 813/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 813/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 20.11.2025 passed in WA No. 813/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet