1 2026:CGHC:27555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4710 of 2023 1 - Tulsi Sahu, Tulsi Ram Sahu S/o Digreelal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mohgaon, Tahsil - Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Prahlad Pradhan S/o Dasrathi Pradhan Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 13, P.O. Aarangi, Jagdamuda, Tahsil- Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Danodar Gadatiya S/o Nityanand Gadatiya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Patharla, Post- Patharla, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co- Society, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Up- Registrar Sahkari Society Mahasamund,, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nodal Officer District Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Prashetra Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Branch Manager District Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Branch Pirda, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Authority Prathamik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Society Maryadit Patharla, Tahsil- Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.04 12:31:38 +0530 2 For Petitioners : None For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.4 to 6 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 03.07.2026 1. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was working as In-charge Society Manager at Prathamik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Society Maryadit, Patharla (Registration No.1204), Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund; petitioner No.2 was working as Kendra In- charge of Paddy Procurement Centre, Barnaidadar under the said Society; and petitioner No.3 was working as Computer Operator at the said procurement centre. The allegation against the petitioners is that upon physical verification, discrepancy/shortage in the stock of paddy was found at Paddy Procurement Centre, Barnaidadar, and it was alleged that the petitioners had committed irregularities by reducing the online stock records. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2, vide order dated 07.06.2023, directed removal of the petitioners from paddy procurement work, which was followed by a communication dated 28.06.2023 for initiating further proceedings. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 removing the petitioners from paddy procurement work. Challenging the orders dated 07.06.2023, 28.06.2023 and 13.10.2023, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3 2. Today, none appears on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the period for which the petitioners had been engaged for paddy procurement work has already expired and, therefore, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 adopts the said submission. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission, particularly considering that the period of engagement of the petitioners for paddy procurement work has already come to an end and none appears on behalf of the petitioners to controvert the same, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh