1 CGHC010253172026 2026:CGHC:28378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3544 of 2026 1 - Dolmani Nag S/o Prandyun Nag Aged About 41 Years Working As Society Manager At Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Toshgaon Reg No 1261, Tahsil Saraipali District- Mahasamund Cg R/o House No.186 Village Toshgaon Tahsil Saraipali District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Block-2 Third Floor Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Managing Director Chhsttisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited 6th Floor Tower C Commercial Complex C B D Sector 21 Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - The Collector Mahasamund District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Marketing Officer Mahasamund District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society Mahasamund District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 6 - Chief Executive Officer District- Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Nodal Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Itu Bhattacharya on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. For respondent- MARKFED : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For respondent -Bank :- Mr. Aniruddhh Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities for consideration of his representation seeking compensation for the loss allegedly caused due to delayed lifting and transportation of paddy by the respondent authorities during the Kharif Marketing Year 2025-26 Procurement Season. The petitioner has also sought protection against any coercive action being taken on account of the alleged shortage reflected in the records. 3 2. The petitioner is the Society Manager of the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Toshgaon, District Mahasamund, which was entrusted with the work of procurement of paddy from registered farmers under the Kharif Marketing Year 2025-26 Procurement Policy implemented by the respondent authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that during the procurement season, the petitioner society procured a total quantity of 74,613.60 quintals of paddy from registered farmers in accordance with the Procurement Policy and maintained the stock at the procurement centre as per the directions issued by the competent authorities. It is further stated that one Shri Nakul Sahu, who was functioning as the Society Manager and Paddy Procurement In-charge, was suspended on 16.12.2025 and thereafter, while handing over charge to the petitioner on 22.12.2025, a Panchnama was prepared recording that Shri Nakul Sahu was responsible for procurement of 22,348 quintals of paddy comprising 55,870 gunny bags. According to the petitioner, despite the obligation cast upon the respondent authorities under Clause 15.8 of the Procurement Policy to ensure timely lifting and transportation of the procured paddy, the same was not undertaken within the prescribed period. Due to prolonged storage, reduction in moisture content occurred, resulting in consequential loss in weight. It is submitted that after completion of transportation, a shortage of 2,996 gunny bags and 1,198.40 quintals of paddy was found in respect of the stock handled by Shri Nakul Sahu. Apart from the aforesaid shortage, 4 the petitioner society claims to have suffered additional loss of approximately 1,562.40 quintals due to drying of paddy caused by delayed lifting and transportation. The petitioner submits that representations dated 01.06.2026 were submitted before the competent authorities seeking compensation under Clause 17 of the Procurement Policy for the loss caused due to delayed lifting and transportation by MARKFED; however, no decision has been taken on the said representations till date. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities and apprehending coercive action against the petitioner society, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner society has performed its obligation under the Procurement Policy by procuring paddy from registered farmers and maintaining the stock at the procurement centre as per the instructions of the respondent authorities. It is contended that under Clause 15.8 of the Procurement Policy, the responsibility of timely lifting and transportation of the procured paddy lies upon the respondent authorities, but due to their failure to lift the paddy within time, the stock remained stored for a prolonged period, resulting in reduction of moisture content and consequential loss in weight. Learned counsel further submits that the shortage reflected in the records cannot be fastened upon the petitioner society without proper adjudication, particularly when a substantial part of the alleged shortage occurred due to delayed 5 transportation attributable to the respondents themselves. It is also submitted that Clause 17 of the Procurement Policy provides for compensation in cases where loss occurs due to delayed lifting and transportation by MARKFED. However, despite submission of detailed representations dated 01.06.2026, no decision has been taken by the competent authorities. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and not to take any coercive action till such decision is taken. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the Procurement Policy and appropriate decision shall be taken expeditiously. It is further submitted that necessary steps regarding lifting of the paddy, if any stock is still lying with the petitioner society, shall also be taken in accordance with the policy and applicable procedure. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly the assurance given by learned counsel appearing for respondent-MARKFED that the representation of the petitioner 6 shall be considered and the paddy lying with the petitioner society, if not already lifted, shall also be lifted, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions. The respondent-MARKFED is directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 01.06.2026 in accordance with law and the provisions of the Procurement Policy, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The respondent-MARKFED shall also take necessary steps for lifting the paddy lying with the petitioner society, if not already lifted, within the aforesaid period. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. The competent authority shall be at liberty to examine and decide the representation of the petitioner independently, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge vishakha