1 CGHC010241082026 2026:CGHC:28295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3530 of 2026 1 - Onkar Prashad Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years Present Incharge Manager Of Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Surajpura Paddy Procurement Center Surajpura R.N. No. 218, Add- Village Peandaridih, Post Surajpura Tehsil Lohara District Kabirdham C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Co- Oprative Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Suppliers Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Office At 6th Floor Tower -C Commercial Complex C B D Sector 21 Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 4 - The Collector District Kabirdham C.G. 5 - The District Marketing Officer District Cooperative Central Bank VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Maryadit Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G. 6 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society District Kabirdham C.G. 7 - The District Food Officer District Kabirdham C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For respondent-MARKFED :- Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For State :- Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. For respondent No. 6 :- Ms. Khyati Adil, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 08.07.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the alleged illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent authorities whereby pressure is being exerted upon the petitioner to make good the alleged shortage of paddy caused due to dryness at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Surajpura. The petitioner has also sought protection against any coercive action being taken by the respondents without adjudication of the liability in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is the In-charge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Surajpura, which was entrusted with the work of procurement of 3 paddy under the Kharif Marketing Year 2025-26 Procurement Policy. It is the case of the petitioner that the Paddy Procurement Centre purchased a total quantity of 1,06,750.80 quintals of paddy from registered farmers during the procurement season. According to the petitioner, an alleged shortage of 11,229.50 quintals has been reflected, which amounts to approximately 10.51% of the total quantity procured. The petitioner submits that the alleged shortage has occurred due to natural drying of paddy caused by prolonged storage and excessive heat conditions, which was beyond the control of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner continuously informed the respondent authorities regarding non-lifting of paddy from the procurement centre despite the obligations under the Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025-26. According to the petitioner, despite repeated communications and issuance of legal notices to the respondent authorities, no effective steps were taken for timely lifting and transportation of the paddy. However, after the alleged shortage due to dryness came to light, the respondents started pressurising the petitioner to fill up the shortage at his own cost and threatened initiation of criminal proceedings. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have extended benefit of permissible dryness shortage to millers, whereas no such consideration is being extended to the Paddy Procurement Centres and the entire liability is sought to be fastened upon the petitioner and the Society. It is alleged that the millers, despite 4 issuance of demand orders, failed to lift the paddy for several months, resulting in accumulation of stock and consequential drying. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action and apprehending coercive proceedings, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in compelling the petitioner to compensate the alleged shortage without conducting any proper enquiry or adjudication is wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner had performed his duty of procurement and preservation of paddy, whereas timely lifting and transportation of the procured paddy was the responsibility of the respondent authorities. Despite repeated requests and communications made by the petitioner, the authorities failed to ensure timely lifting of the stock. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged shortage is a result of natural drying due to prolonged storage and excessive heat conditions and the same cannot be attributed to any negligence or misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents are protecting the millers by granting permissible shortage benefits to them, while the entire burden is being imposed upon the petitioner and the Society. Learned counsel places reliance upon the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 2567 of 2026, wherein protection against coercive action was granted in similar circumstances. Learned counsel, therefore, 5 prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to decide the dispute in accordance with law and not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till such adjudication. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the authorities are proceeding strictly in accordance with the Procurement Policy and the applicable rules. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been granted opportunity to submit his explanation and the matter shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is further submitted that no final decision has been taken against the petitioner and appropriate orders shall be passed after considering all relevant aspects. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner and further considering the fact that the petitioner has already submitted his response/explanation against the notice issued by the respondent authorities, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities are under an obligation to consider and decide the dispute strictly in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the explanation/reply submitted by the petitioner and decide the issue regarding the alleged shortage of paddy in accordance with 6 the applicable Procurement Policy and rules, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Till final decision of the aforesaid dispute, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the alleged shortage of paddy. 9. The competent authorities shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order on the merits of the case after considering the submissions and material available on record. The authorities concerned are directed to decide the dispute within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim or defence raised by either of the parties and the competent authority shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law. 11.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha