1 2026:CGHC:27446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1754 of 2026 Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Rudha Procurement Center Sagarpali, Registered Society Under Cooperative Societies Act, Registration No. 1348, Through Its Seller And Paddy Purchase Incharge- Anil Kumar Pradhan, S/o Satyawan Pradhan, Aged About 39 Years, Procurement Center Sagarpali, Branch Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh. Through The Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED), Sector- 21, C.B.D. Complex, 6th Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Cooperative Society, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Limited Raipur, Pandri, Indira Gandhi Parisar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 7 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Maryadit, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.07 11:46:51 +0530 2 8 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 9 - Branch Manager Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Branch Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 10 - The Officer On Special Duty Apex Bank, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 11 - The Chief Executive Officer Head Office District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 12 - The Nodal Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Raipur, Branch Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roop Kumar Naik, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Addl. AG, Ms. Seema Verma, Ms. Sakshi Singh and Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocates SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction, commanding the Respondent No. 2 & 7 to lift and transport the entire remaining stock of purchased paddy as per State policy and tripartite agreement, at the earliest; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents Authorities to constitute the Committee and compensate the 3 petitioner Society for loss caused due to non- lifting of paddy within prescribed time limit i.e. 31.03.2026; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents Authorities to compensate for weight-loss paddy of about 1163.25 quintals and also compensate for loss caused during non-lifting paddy period from 15.01.2026 to 06.02.2026 (about 23 days); 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondents/Authorities from taking any coercive action, including the registration of FIRs or recovery proceedings against the Petitioner Society or its office bearers, for variation in quality of paddy resulting from the respondents' transport the stock. inaction to lift/transport the stock. 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. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1 (State) issued the Policy/Circular regulating the purchase, procurement and time-bound transportation of paddy. Pursuant to the instructions of Respondent No.1 (the State), the paddy procurement period was set from 15.1.2025 to 31.1.2026. During this period, the Petitioner-Society purchased a total 60055.20 quintals of paddy from farmers. The respondent authorities arbitrarily and with malafide intention suspended the MARKFED ‘Gatepass App’ across Chhattisgarh for 23 days i.e. from 15.1.2026 to 7.2.2026 4 without any technical justification. This completely halted transportation during the peak season. The respondents successfully lifted 90% to 97% of the procured paddy from various other societies, whereas only 44.64% was lifted from the Petitioner-Society (Serial No.165), demonstrating hostile discrimination. As on 3.4.2026, a total of 1468.85 quintals of paddy remains unlifted and due to which, the Petitioner Society is suffering daily losses as the stored paddy dries and deteriorates day by day. The respondents have failed to comply with the State’s mandatory procurement policy dated 15.10.2025 for the Kharif Marketing Season 2025-26 resulting in severe financial loss and unjustified threats of criminal action against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities, particularly respondents 2 & 7 disregards the guidelines and Policy framed by the State Government as well as the tripartite agreement. The responsibility of the petitioner is confined to purchase and safe custody of the paddy stock, however, the alleged shortage in weight is entirely attributable to natural dryage and moisture evaporation caused by severe heat waves, which is completely beyond the control of human. He also submits that respondents 2 & 7 ignored the petitioner’s request to transport the paddy as early as possible and they deliberately did not consider this issue. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner pray to allow the petitions. 5 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 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 6 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 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 7 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 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 8 Clause 13 of the Agreement. Since the Agreement itself contains 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 herein. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner is relegated to raise its disputes before the appropriate authority under the arbitration clause of the Agreement in accordance with law. In the event the petitioner approaches 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 these observations/directions, the Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay