1 2026:CGHC:26831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2817 of 2026 1 - Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Limited Devri Devri Reg. No. 1503, Through Its Incharge Manager Raju Lal Sonwani, S/o Rajkumar Sonwani, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post Chicholi Police Station Kharora Tehsil Kharora District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Cooperative Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh, Marketing Federation Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy Commissionser Registrar Cooperative Society Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 6 - Branch Manager District Central Bank Limited Tilda District Raipur Chhattistgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ameet Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 2 & 5 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 : Ms. Sakshi Thakur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S. S. Baghel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent authority. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction, restraining the respondent from taking any coercive action, including registration of FIR, arrest, recovery proceedings our any penal action against the petitioner on the basis of alleged shortage of 560.41 quintals. iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 3 iv. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, The petitioner is serving as the Manager of Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Devri, Registration No. 1503, and was entrusted with the responsibility of procuring paddy at the procurement centre situated at Block Tilda, District Raipur, during the Kharif Marketing Season 2025-26. The procurement was carried out strictly in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025-26, under which paddy was required to be procured with a permissible moisture content of up to 17%. During the procurement period from 15.12.2025 to 06.02.2026, the Society procured 38,126.80 quintals of paddy from eligible farmers through the online procurement system. Under Clauses 15.8 and 15.9 of the Procurement Policy, the responsibility of timely lifting and transportation of the procured paddy rested upon the respondent authorities, while the petitioner, being only the Manager of the Society registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, was responsible merely for procurement of paddy in accordance with the Government guidelines. It is the case of the petitioner that despite repeated representations submitted to the Managing Director, Markfed, and other competent authorities seeking immediate lifting of the stock, the respondent authorities failed to transport the paddy within the 4 prescribed period, resulting in prolonged storage at the procurement centre. Although the approved storage capacity of the procurement centre was 11,520 quintals, the stock remained stored for a considerable period, resulting in natural drying loss (Sukhat). Pursuant to the directions of the Collector, Raipur, a joint inspection was conducted on 30.05.2026, during which a difference of 560.41 quintals was noticed between the online records and the physical stock. During the enquiry, the petitioner as well as the Fad Prabhari, Bardana Prabhari, Computer Operator and other employees consistently stated that the said shortage had occurred solely due to natural drying loss caused by prolonged storage and delayed lifting and was not attributable to theft, embezzlement, unauthorized sale or misappropriation. It is further the case of the petitioner that similar disputes had arisen in previous procurement seasons, wherein similarly situated persons had approached this Court and were granted appropriate interim protection. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has discharged all his duties strictly in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025-26, and that the entire procurement process was conducted in conformity with the prescribed guidelines. It is contended that the petitioner had no responsibility whatsoever for the lifting or transportation of the procured paddy, as such responsibility exclusively vested with the respondent authorities under Clauses 15.8 and 15.9 of the 5 Procurement Policy. Learned counsel further submits that despite repeated requests made by the petitioner for timely lifting of the stock, the respondent authorities failed to perform their statutory obligations, resulting in prolonged storage and consequential natural drying loss (Sukhat). It is argued that the alleged shortage of 560.41 quintals is nothing but the result of such natural drying loss and not of any theft, embezzlement, unauthorized sale or criminal misappropriation. The enquiry conducted by the competent authorities, including the statements of the petitioner and other officials, clearly supports the petitioner's stand that the variation in stock occurred due to natural causes. It is further submitted that out of the total procurement of 38,126.80 quintals, 37,566.39 quintals had already been duly transported and accounted for, and there is no material whatsoever to establish any dishonest intention or criminal misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned action directing registration of an FIR is arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Procurement Policy, violative of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner pray to allow the petitions. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-State as well as Respondent-MARKFED submit that the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted because it is against the Paddy Procurement Policy for the Session 2025-2026. Under the said Policy, there is no provision for dryage benefit. Furthermore, as 6 far as the transportation part is concerned, the Policy itself provides for a mechanism to remove any hindrance as MARKED states that if transportation facilities cannot be provided by MARKFED, the petitioner-Society is permitted to transport the paddy from the concerned Societies to the Center, as directed by MARKFED. They submit that the expenses incurred by Society would then be adjusted by MARKFED. As such, timely transportation would be the responsibility of the Society itself. Therefore, the concerned Society cannot hold the State or MARKFED liable for any delayed transportation of paddy. They lastly submit that since no benefit in respect of dryage of paddy can be granted to the Society under the Policy, the petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is without merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petitions. 6. Admittedly, the reliefs sought by the petitioner stem from the natural dryage of paddy, which led to reduction in its total weight due to moisture evaporation. This shortage occurred due to non- lifting and omission to transport the paddy from the Center within the stipulated time. Though the petitioner made several efforts and repeatedly made communications with the respondents to expedite the lifting of the paddy but the concerned authorities chose not to take any steps. Under the Paddy Procurement Policy 7 of the State Government for the Kharif Marketing Session 2025- 2026, there are specific provisions i.e. clause 15.9 and clause 16.3, which address the subject issue and are reproduced below : 15.9 धान उपार्जन के न्द्रों में संग्रहित धान के लिए केई संखत मेंत्रा मेंन्य न गी!। 16.3 धान के पारि$वन  त& लिनधारि$त पारि$वनकेत द्वा$ पारि$वन न हिकेय र्जन पा$ आवश्यकेतन&सं$ स्व!के+ त पारि$वन द$ पा$ हिकेसं! भी! पारि$वनकेत सं पारि$वन के केय के$य र्ज संकेत .। मेंके फे ड द्वा$ पारि$वन न के$य र्जन के1 स्थिस्3लित में स्व!के+ त पारि$वन द$ पा$ संलिमेंलितय द्वा$ धान के पारि$वन के$य र्जव । इसं  त& संलिमेंलित उसं धान भीण्ड$ण व सं&$क्षा मेंद अ3व प्रासंलिगीके व्यय के मेंद में प्रादत्त अलिग्रमें $लि< के उपायगी पारि$वन द यके के भी&गीतन  त& के$ संके गी! त3 ऐसं व्यय के1 प्रालितपालित विवपाणन संघ द्वा$ संलिमेंलित के के1 र्जएगी!। संलिमेंलितय द्वा$ धान पारि$वन के$य र्जन पा$ संग्रण के न्द्रों में धान भीण्ड$ण के$न  त& उलि@त व्यवस्3 मेंके फे ड द्वा$ के1 र्जव । 7. A perusal of the aforesaid clauses would show that the State Government has framed a Policy, according to which, no dryage is generally permitted. Clause 16.3 provides that in the event MARKFED fails to transport the paddy from the concerned Societies, the Societies themselves are directed to arrange transportation at the applicable rates with the expenses incurred to be subsequently adjusted by MARKFED. Thus, the main ground raised by the petitioner regarding natural dryage caused 8 by delayed transportation cannot be adjudicated by this Court, as doing so would ignore the terms of the subject Policy, which allows no permissible dryage . The petitioner has entered into an Agreement with the respondents, wherein clause 5.6 of the said Agreement stipulates as under : 5.6- foi.ku la?k }kjk iznk; dh xbZ jkf'k ls miktZu dsUnz ¼lfefr½ }kjk /kku foi.ku la?k dks de izkIr gksus ij 'ks"k jkf'k dh olwyh lfefr dks iznk; deh'ku ,oa vU; vuqlkafxd enksa ls jkf'k dh dVkSrh dh tkosxh A blds mijkar Hkh olwyh ;ksX; jkf'k 'ks"k jgus ij ftyk foi.ku vf/kdkjh }kjk N-x- jkT; lgdkjh lkslk;Vh vf/kfu;e 1960 ds varxZr olwyh dk;Zokgh gsrq l{ke U;k;ky; esa izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkosxk A” 8. Likewise, Clause 13 of the Agreement provides the resolution of the disputes between the parties through arbitration, which reads as under: 13- vkfCkZVªs'ku %& bl vuqca/k dh fdlh Hkh df.Mdk ls lacaf/kr fookn mRiUu gksus dh fLFkfr esa fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq ftys esa ftyk dysDVj dk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxk tks mHk;i{kksa dks ekU; gksxk A dysDVj }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dh vihy mHk;i{kksa }kjk ftys ds laHkkxh; vk;qDr dks dh tk ldsxh A” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also considering the State Government’s Paddy Procurement Policy for the year 2025-2026, this Court is of the view that an alternative and efficacious remedy exists by invoking arbitration Clause 13 of the Agreement. Since the Agreement itself contains 9 a dispute resolution mechanism for resolving conflicts between the parties, the petitioner ought to have invoked arbitration clause in respect of shortage of paddy. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition for the reliefs sought by the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner is relegated to raise their disputes before the appropriate authority under the arbitration clause of the Agreement in accordance with law. In the event the petitioner approach the concerned authorities for arbitration concerning any dispute covered under the said clause, the concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The concerned authorities vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under the arbitration clause are at liberty to initiate and conduct appropriate arbitration proceedings and pass a reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. With this observations/directions, the writ petition stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat