1 2026:CGHC:23135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2506 of 2026 Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Naresh Ram Aged About 49 Years Posted As- Procurement Centre In-Charge, Bawankera In The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Bawankera, Reg. No. 989, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur, Through Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Jhalap Distt- Mahasamund Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Through Branch Manager, Branch Jhalap Distt- Mahasamund Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Through- Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, 6th Floor, Tower C Cbd, Sector- 21 Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative And Deputy Registrar Co- Operative Societies, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - District Mark-Fed Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.15 18:19:51 +0530 2 8 - The Society Manager Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Bawankera, Reg. No. 989, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 9 - The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Bawankera Reg. No. 989, Through Authorized Officer Of The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Bawankera, Reg. No. 989, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respective Respondents : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.05.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “a) Quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 06.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondents; b) Hold that the alleged shortage of paddy is on account of natural drying and delay in lifting by the respondents, and the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same; c) Direct the respondents not to take any coercive or recovery action against the petitioner in respect of the alleged shortage; d) Direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in 3 accordance with law and in light of Clause 13 of the Agreement; e) Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2 Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents jointly submits that there exists an arbitration clause between the parties, in terms whereof the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to raise his grievances before the concerned Arbitrator/Collector. It is further submitted that instead of availing the said statutory and contractual remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and, therefore, the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law. 3 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Procurement Centre In-charge, Bawankera under Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Bawankera, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) and was appointed as sub-agent for procurement of paddy at support price for the procurement year 2025-26. He submits that due to non-lifting of the procured paddy by the concerned authorities within the stipulated time, the stored paddy remained at the procurement centre for a prolonged period, resulting in natural drying and consequential shortage in weight due to reduction in moisture content. It is further submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly 4 informed the competent authorities regarding accumulation of buffer stock and non-lifting of paddy. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already submitted an arbitration application/representation dated 15.04.2026 before the concerned Collector explaining the entire factual matrix and disputing the liability sought to be fastened upon him, however, the same is still pending consideration. It is also submitted that despite pendency of the aforesaid application, the respondent authorities are continuously taking coercive steps against the petitioner and are seeking to recover the alleged shortage amount from him. 5 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the material available on record. 6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further taking into consideration the fact that the arbitration application/representation dated 15.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner before the concerned Collector is still pending consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that till the said application is considered and decided in accordance with law, the concerned respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned action. 7 It is further observed that the competent authority shall consider and decide the pending application of the petitioner expeditiously, 5 strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 8 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent authority shall independently consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 10 No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh