1 2026:CGHC:14041 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2575 of 2021 1 - Smt. Vijay Laxmi Joshi W/o Late Shri Jashwant Roy Joshi Aged About 68 Years D/o Late Shri Jagdish Das Sharma, R/o Village Sutoopali, Block And Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Formers Welfare And Biological Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Directorate Agriculture Of Chhattisgarh Vikas Bhawan, Sector - 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Chhattisgarh 5 - The Deputy Director Agriculture Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Cooperative Society, Indrawati Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 8 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Limited Raipur, Padri, Indira Gandhi Parisar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - The Officer On Special Duty Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Limited (Apex Bank) Branch Pusaur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 10 - The Tahsildar Pusaur Cum Nodal Officer Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 11 - Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Padigaon, Registered Society Under Cooperative Societies Act, Registration No. 188, Through Its Manager, Block And Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For State :- Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition before the Hon’ble High Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to purchase the registered and prescribed paddy from the petitioner forthwith and to recover the loan amount of Rs. 2,70,052/- without interest and further to grant benefits/input assistance in favour of the petitioner under the Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyay Yojna 2020–21. The petitioner had cultivated the crop with the assistance of Respondent No. 11 on the agricultural land and, upon his turn arising, Respondent No. 11 issued a paddy procurement token dated 03.01.2021 specifying the prescribed quantity of paddy. The petitioner accordingly brought the paddy to the premises of Respondent No. 11 on 05.01.2021; however, on 06.01.2021, Respondent No. 11 refused to purchase the same by recording a note on the said token citing an order of Respondent No. 10, thereby causing grave prejudice and financial loss to the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered beneficiary under the Public Financial Management System (PFMS) and on the basis of such registration has availed loan from Respondent No. 11 under the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Scheme for the Kharif season 2020–21, which was utilized for cultivation of paddy on her agricultural land with the assistance of Respondent No. 11. Upon 4 her turn arising, Respondent No. 11 issued a paddy procurement token dated 03.01.2021 specifying the prescribed quantity, and accordingly the petitioner brought her paddy to the procurement centre on 05.01.2021; however, on 06.01.2021, Respondent No. 11 refused to purchase the same by making an endorsement on the token citing instructions of Respondent No. 10, as a result of which the paddy remains unsold and is still lying with the petitioner who is ready and willing to sell the same even today. It is submitted that the petitioner is unable to repay the loan amount of Rs. 2,70,052/- along with accrued interest since 31.03.2021 due to non-purchase of her paddy, and there is apprehension that Respondent No. 11 may initiate coercive civil or criminal proceedings for recovery and may also deprive the petitioner of benefits under the KCC Scheme and the Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyay Yojna for the year 2021–22. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking direction to the respondent authorities to purchase the registered quantity of paddy and recover the loan amount without interest or in the alternative to waive the loan if procurement is not undertaken, and further to grant input assistance under the Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyay Yojna 2020–21 as well as to provide fresh agricultural loan, including seeds, fertilizers and cash assistance, for the Kharif season 2021–22 with recovery to be made through mandi in accordance with law. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- 5 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by directing the respondent authority to purchase the registered and prescribed paddy from the petitioner immediately and recover the loan amount of Rs. 2,70,052/- without interest. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by directing the respondent authority to exempt the entire loan (Rs. 2,70,052/-), if the respondents authority is unable to purchase the registered the paddy quantity (150 quintals). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by directing the respondent authority (respondent No. 2 to 5) to grant benefits/ input money in favour of the petitioner under Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyay Yojna 2020-21 if the respondent No. 11 purchase the Paddy or not purchase the Paddy. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by directing the respondent authority to register the name of the petitioner in the Kisan Portal and provide the loan (seeds, fertilizers and cash amount) to the petitioner for growing the paddy crops for Kharif Season year 2021-22 and also direction to purchase the paddy and recover the said loan amount direct from Mandi according to law. 6 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the petitioner and also direction to the state authority to take appropriate punitive action against the responsible officer or the respondent No. 11.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner is a registered farmer under the Public Financial Management System (PFMS) and has duly availed loan under the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Scheme from Respondent No. 11, which was utilized for cultivation of paddy during the Kharif season 2020–21. The petitioner was issued a valid paddy procurement token dated 03.01.2021 specifying the registered quantity, thereby creating a legitimate expectation that her produce would be purchased in accordance with the prevailing procurement policy. However, despite the petitioner bringing the paddy to the procurement centre within the stipulated time, Respondent No. 11 arbitrarily refused to purchase the same by making an endorsement on the token on the basis of instructions of Respondent No. 10, which action is wholly illegal, unjust and contrary to the governing scheme and policy. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having utilized the loan amount and agricultural inputs for production, is now unable to repay the loan along with accrued interest solely due to non-procurement of her paddy, and thus cannot be penalized for the fault of the 7 respondent authorities. The petitioner continues to be in possession of the entire registered quantity of paddy and is ready and willing to sell the same even today, but is suffering continuous financial loss due to lack of storage facilities and deterioration of the crop. It is also submitted that the petitioner is entitled to benefits under the Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyay Yojna 2020–21, which have been wrongfully withheld by the respondents. It is therefore submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of the petitioner’s legitimate rights and contrary to the terms of the scheme and loan agreement. Hence, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to purchase the registered quantity of paddy, grant due benefits under the scheme, and take appropriate steps regarding the loan liability in the interest of justice. 5. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that paddy procurement is governed strictly in accordance with the prescribed procurement policy, and purchase can be made only subject to compliance with the terms and conditions stipulated therein. It is submitted that if the petitioner’s paddy could not be procured, the same was on account of administrative and procedural reasons recorded by the competent authority, and no illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that benefits under the concerned scheme as well as matters relating to loan liability are regulated separately in accordance with applicable guidelines, 8 and therefore no mandamus, as prayed for, deserves to be issued in the present petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the perusal of the record, it appears that though the petitioner was issued a procurement slip/token for purchase of paddy to the extent of 150 quintals, the undisputed factual position emerging from the documents filed along with the petition is that the petitioner’s name was not duly incorporated in the concerned Kisan Portal / procurement database in accordance with the prevailing procurement policy governing paddy purchase for the Kharif season 2020–21. The material available on record further demonstrates that procurement under the State scheme was entirely portal-based and subject to verification of land details, registration particulars, and ownership entries in the prescribed digital record. In absence of such valid registration and corresponding entry in the procurement portal, the respondent authorities were legally restrained from accepting the paddy for procurement, as procurement beyond the authorized digital entry would have been contrary to the policy framework and audit requirements. 8. Merely because a token was issued at an earlier stage, no indefeasible or enforceable legal right accrued in favour of the petitioner to compel the State authorities to purchase the produce 9 dehors the governing policy. A procurement token by itself is only a provisional facilitative document and remains subject to fulfillment of all statutory and administrative conditions under the procurement scheme. Once the competent authority found that the petitioner’s name was not duly reflected in the portal as an eligible recorded cultivator/registered owner for the relevant season, the procurement authorities could not have acted contrary to the prescribed procedure. 9. So far as the plea of the petitioner that she had availed agricultural loan under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme and therefore the respondents should either purchase the paddy or waive the loan amount is concerned, such submission also cannot be accepted. Loan disbursal under the KCC scheme and procurement of paddy under the State procurement policy operate in distinct fields governed by separate regulatory conditions. Availing of agricultural credit does not automatically create a corresponding enforceable obligation upon the State to procure agricultural produce irrespective of eligibility under the procurement mechanism. The liability arising out of loan transaction remains governed by the contractual and statutory terms applicable between the lending cooperative institution and the borrower. 10. The petitioner has also prayed that the loan amount of Rs. 2,70,052/- be recovered without interest or, alternatively, be 10 exempted altogether. Such relief cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when no statutory provision has been shown conferring any legal right upon the petitioner for waiver, exemption, or compulsory adjustment of loan against procurement proceeds. Financial concessions, waiver of dues, and restructuring of agricultural liabilities are matters falling within executive policy and cannot be directed by issuance of mandamus in absence of a specific enforceable legal entitlement. 11. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, as sought to be indirectly invoked by the petitioner on the basis of issuance of token, is also of no assistance in the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that legitimate expectation does not create an enforceable right contrary to statutory or policy requirements and remains subservient to administrative conditions and larger public policy. In Army Welfare Education Society New Delhi vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 501, the Supreme Court has held that legitimate expectation is procedural in nature and cannot override mandatory eligibility conditions under an administrative framework. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- “46. In Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 8 SCC 381, this Court 11 explained the doctrine of legitimate expectation in details as follows:- “What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The term “established practice” refers to a regular, consistent, predictable and certain Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3138-3141/2021 & 3133-3137/2021 conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by the courts, for judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short, a person can be said to have a “legitimate expectation” of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above “fairness in action” but far below “promissory estoppel”. It 12 may only entitle an expectant : (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the courts may grant a direction requiring the authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bona fide reason given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the “legitimate expectation”. The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognised legal relationship with the authority. A total stranger unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous dealings Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3138-3141/2021 & 3133- 3137/2021 with the authority and who has not entered into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.” 47. In Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in (2008) 2 SCC 161, this Court, 13 while differentiating between legitimate expectation on the one hand and anticipation, wishes and desire on the other, observed thus:- “A legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. [See Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 3 SCC 485 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 322] and Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499] It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the public. We have no doubt that the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters.” 12. Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when the petitioner establishes a clear subsisting legal right and a corresponding public duty on the part of the authority. In absence of such enforceable right, no mandamus can be granted merely on equitable considerations. In State of Maharashtra v. Jalgaon Municipal Council (2003) 9 SCC 731 principle reiterated in recent Supreme Court decisions, it has been emphasized that mandamus cannot be issued where relief sought is contrary to governing policy or dependent upon fulfillment of conditions not satisfied by the claimant. The same principle has again been 14 reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in recent decisions holding that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to compel grant of policy benefits absent legal entitlement. 13. So far as the claim for benefits under Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyay Yojna 2020–21 is concerned, grant of such benefit is also dependent upon satisfaction of scheme eligibility and valid entry in the notified records. Since the petitioner admittedly was not duly reflected in the concerned procurement/portal records for the relevant agricultural season, no automatic direction can be issued for release of input assistance under the said scheme. 14. This Court is of the considered view that in matters involving agricultural procurement governed by policy, digital verification, and seasonal regulatory conditions, judicial interference is warranted only when patent arbitrariness or violation of statutory right is established. In the present case, no such illegality is demonstrated. The inability of the respondents to procure paddy arose from non-fulfillment of foundational eligibility conditions reflected from the record itself. 15. Consequently, no case for issuance of writ of mandamus is made out. The relief sought for compulsory procurement of paddy, loan adjustment, loan waiver, grant of scheme benefit, and fresh agricultural credit cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15 16. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha