1 2026:CGHC:19261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1993 of 2026 1 - Kushat Ram Chandra S/o Bodram Chandra Aged About 37 Years Incharge Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Kikirda Tehsil Hasoud District- Sakti Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Food And Civil Supplies Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Cum Food Officer Food Branch Sakti District- Sakti Chhattisgarh, 3 - Tahsildar Hasoud District Sakti Chhattisgarh, 4 - Chhattisgarh State Co- Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Secretary 6th Floor Tower-C, C B D Sector - 21,nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, 5 - District Marketing Officer/ Nodal Officer Chhattisgarh State Co- Operative Marketing Federation Limited District Sakti Chhattisgarh, 6 - Assistant Commissioner Sahakarita And Assistant Registrar VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Cooperative Societies District Sakti Office At Mangal Bhawan Village Khutadahara Post- Tikari Tehsil Naya Baradwar District Sakti, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate For State :- Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 :- Mrs. Astha Shukla, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 27.04.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions against the respondent authorities not to hold him liable for any alleged shortage in paddy stored at the society, which according to him has occurred due to delay on the part of the respondents in issuing transport and delivery orders for lifting the paddy. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is Incharge of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kikirda, District Sakti, and the society was engaged in procurement of paddy for the Kharif year 2025–26. It is the case of the petitioner that substantial quantity of paddy was procured and stored at the society and was required to be lifted by the millers by February, 2026. It is alleged that despite repeated representations, the respondent authorities 3 failed to issue necessary transport and delivery orders in time, resulting in delayed lifting of paddy in April, 2026. According to the petitioner, due to such delay, there was deterioration and reduction in weight of the stored paddy and the authorities are seeking to hold him liable for the same. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to held the petitioner liable for the shortage in paddy in the society which is due to the fault of the respondents in lifting the paddy on time from the society. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any action and give him time to reply. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct for enquiry over the shortage in the society to which petitioner is incharge and he may not be held liable for the shortage due to fault of respondents. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner 4 has already been redressed and no cause of action survives for adjudication at this stage. It is further submitted that no further directions are required to be issued by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 and 5 submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has already been duly addressed and necessary steps have been taken in accordance with the applicable policy and procedure. It is further submitted that the paddy in question has already been lifted and no adverse action is being pursued against the petitioner at present on account of the alleged shortage. Learned counsel thus submits that in view of the redressal of the grievance, the present writ petition has become infructuous and does not survive for further consideration. 6. Learned State counsel submits that appropriate action has already been taken in the matter in accordance with law. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition no longer survives for consideration. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance has already been redressed, this Court is of the considered view that nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the present petition. 5 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous. 10. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha