1 2026:CGHC:20618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1909 of 2026 1 - Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Borsi, Registration No. 783, A Society Registered Under The Chhattisgarh Co- Operative Societies Act, 1960 And Having Its Registered Address At Borsi, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Manager Shri Nehru Ram Sahu, S/o- Tirath Ram Sahu, Age 60 Years , R/o- 117, Ward 05, Borsi, Fingeswar, Gariyaband, Rajim, Pin 493992, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperation, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Joint Commissioner, Cooperative, Raipur Division, Chhattisgarh, Opp. Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, C.G. Email- Jrcsraipur1@Gmail.Com. 3 - Assistant Commissioner, Cooperative And Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District -Gariyaband, Gaurav Path Road, C.G. Email- Arcsgariaband2@Gmail.Com. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Collector District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh District Collectorate Office Gariyaband, C.G. 493889 Email- Gariaband.Cg@Gov.In. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mallick Sudip Ravi, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 02.04.2026 issued by Respondent Authority; B) Stay the operation and effect of the impugned letter dated 02.04.2026 during pendency of the present petition; C) Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a registered Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society engaged in procurement of paddy under the State procurement scheme at the Minimum Support Price (MSP), and the present dispute arises out of procurement of Kharif crop paddy for the year 2024–2025, wherein due to delay in lifting of stock from procurement centres by the respondent authorities, a surplus stock accumulated 3 beyond the prescribed limits, resulting in alleged dryage and shortage; that the petitioner contends that such delay was solely attributable to the failure of the respondent authorities to act upon instructions for priority lifting of paddy and not due to any negligence or omission on the part of the petitioner; that in this regard, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPC No. 3594/2025, wherein vide order dated 14.07.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authorities and directed the authorities to decide the same within 90 days that in compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 31.07.2025 before the Collector, however, no action was taken and no decision was communicated; that subsequently, during the Legislative Assembly Budget Session (February–March 2026), certain discussions took place regarding shortage of paddy, and thereafter, without considering the petitioner’s grievances, the respondent authority issued the impugned letter dated 02.04.2026 directing initiation of recovery proceedings under Section 58(b) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and that being aggrieved by the arbitrary and mechanical issuance of the said letter, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter dated 02.04.2026 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, as the same has been issued mechanically without any independent application of mind and solely on the basis of 4 legislative discussions, which have no binding adjudicatory value. It is contended that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to initiation of recovery proceedings, thereby rendering the impugned action violative of the principles of natural justice; it is further submitted that Section 58(b) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 mandates that liability for loss must be preceded by a proper audit, inquiry, inspection, or other fact-finding exercise establishing negligence, misconduct, or misappropriation, whereas in the present case no such statutory process has been undertaken; it is urged that in absence of such foundational facts, assumption of jurisdiction under Section 58(b) is ex facie illegal and unsustainable; it is also contended that the petitioner had already submitted a representation pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, which has not been decided till date, and without addressing the said representation, the impugned action has been initiated in a hurried and arbitrary manner; it is further submitted that reliance on legislative proceedings for initiating coercive recovery is impermissible in law and amounts to a colourable exercise of power; it is therefore prayed that the impugned letter initiating recovery proceedings be quashed and appropriate relief be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 material available on record. 6. From the reliefs sought by the petitioner, it appears that the petition has been filed in the absence of any accrued cause of action; a perusal of the letter dated 02.04.2026 indicates that the concerned officers have merely been authorized to initiate proceedings under Section 58(B) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and to undertake the exercise of assessing and calculating the deficit quantity of paddy at the procurement centre, and therefore, at this stage, no adverse order or action has been passed against the petitioner; accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition is premature and does not warrant interference. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 8. However, if any cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate petition. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat