1 2025:CGHC:5204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 596 of 2025 1 - Reshamlal Kant S/o Shyamlal Kant Aged About 53 Years Occupation- Manager (Sanstha Prabandhak) Of Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bharari, Registration No. 558, R/o Ward No. 5, Village- Malhar, Block- Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 2 - Managing Director C.G. State Market Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 3 - District Marketing Officer Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Nodal Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.31 16:46:13 +0530 2 6 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative/deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Branch Manager District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited,branch- Loharsi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 8 : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 29/1/2025 1. For ready reference, the facts of this present writ petition are taken into consideration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in- charge (Prabhari Samiti Prabandhak) of Seva Sahakari Samiti Bharari, registered under Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 bearing Registration No.558. As per the scheme, the State Government Societies is required to purchase the paddy as per norms and guidelines issued by the State Government for the year 2023-24. For that purpose, a tripartite agreement has been executed among the Respondent No.2/C.G. State Market 3 Federation Maryadit, Respondent No.4/District Co-operative Central Bank limited and the Society of the Petitioner. He further submits that as the paddy which is procured by the society of the petitioner has not been lifted, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition (C) No.1844 of 2024 and this Court vide its order dated 02.04.2024 directed the respondent No.2 to lift the paddy within the period of 30 days and also directed the authorities to decide the application for grant of shortage of paddy due to dryness. Since the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.1844 of 2024 was not complied with by the respondent authorities, a MCC No.445 of 2024 was filed by the Respondent No.2 and this Court vide its order dated 25.04.2024 granted further 30 days time to Respondent No.2 to lift up the paddy from the petitioner’s society. Since the order dated 02.04.2024 and 10.05.2024 have not been complied by the respondent authorities, a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner in which this Court has issued notice vide order dated 03/06/2024 and the contempt petition is pending consideration before this Court. He would further submit that there was a threat of registering and First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner, therefore, a fresh writ petition has been filed by the petitioner bearing WPC No.3729 of 2024. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached to the Collector/Arbitrator Bilaspur with regard to shortage or paddy. Vide its order dated 09/10/2024, the Collector dismissed the 4 application. Therefore, petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the order of Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that an appeal against an order of Collector is pending consideration before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur. Vide its order dated 16/01/2025, an application for grant of interim relief was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed against which this petition has been filed. He further submits that despite the order of this Court to Respondents, they have not lifted the paddy. The allegation leveled against the petitioner with regard to emolument of the paddy whereas the respondents are at fault. He would further submit that the adjudication with regard to responsibility of shortage of paddy is hereby decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur. Yet the respondents are bank upon to register the FIR against the petitioner, therefore, he may be granted some interim protection in this writ petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the Divisional Commissioner has rightly rejected the application for interim relief and as such the petitioner’s society was found to be shortage of paddy and, therefore, the direction was issued to register the FIR against the petitioner. He further submits that the appeal against the rejection against order of the Collector in arbitration proceeding is still pending consideration before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur. 5 Therefore, in spite of keeping this petition pending, the Divisional Commissioner may be directed to conclude the proceedings within the reasonable period and in the intervening period the petitioner may be protected. 4. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and on perusal of documents available on record. 5. The dispute with regard to the shortage of paddy with the petitioner’s society. From the perusal of records, it appears that various writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner and several orders have been filed by this Court for lifting up the paddy. An application was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the Collector and the same is also submitted to challenge before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur. The order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur indicates that after due assessment the application for interim relief was dismissed. However, it does not disclose any reason as to why such application was dismissed. The responsibility of shortage of paddy is to be decided by the Divisional Commissioner unless and until the liabilities would be fixed upon the petitioner with regard to shortage of paddy, it would be unreasonable to pre-judge the issue by the State Government by lodging the FIR. 6. This Court is of the opinion that Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur Divisional Bilaspur/competent authority shall decide the appeal of 6 the petitioner within the period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Till then it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep