1 2026:CGHC:25302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2980 of 2026 1 - Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Urandabedha, District Kondagaon C.G. Through Samiti Manager Bhojraj Mali, S/o Latifram Mali, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. 6, Ward No. 4, Saharpur, Badedonger, Distt. Kondagoan, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Registrar Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Society, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited 6th Floor Tower-C, Commercial Complex C B D, Sector 21 Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Marketing Officer Kondagaon, Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Assistant Commissioner / Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Society Kondagaon, Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Nodal Officer District Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kondagaon, Distt. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Limited/ Apex Bank, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Harshal chouhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Anirudhh Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the notice dated 15.05.2026, whereby the petitioner–society has been directed to supply the shortfall quantity of paddy reflected on the procurement portal, i.e., 3358.35 quintals, forthwith. 2. The above stated quantity of paddy was remaining at the Center till 13.05.2026 as displayed in the paddy procurement portal. By the said notice, it has been specifically mentioned that under the paddy procurement policy pertaining to the year 2025-26, no dry quantity/dryage in respect of paddy center would be allowed and as such, the petitioner was directed to give the quantity of paddy which has not been supplied. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already replied to the notice dated 15.05.2026. However, the dispute has not been decided by the authorities concerned till date, and as such, the authorities may be directed to consider the said reply of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order on merits of the case and till then, the said authority may be directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner society. 4. On the other hand, learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the limited prayer made in this petition by the petitioner-society and further considering the fact that the reply has already been filed by the petitioner against the notice dated 15.05.2026, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities are under an obligation to decide the dispute strictly in accordance with the law. However, till the decision of the said dispute, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 7. The authorities concerned would be at liberty to pass an appropriate orders on the merits of the case after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The authorities concerned 4 are directed to decide the said dispute within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is hereby disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha