1 CGHC010259452026 2026:CGHC:28390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3564 of 2026 Adimjati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bajawand District Bastar (C.G.) Procurement Centre Talnar Through In-Charge Damru Dhar Pandey S/o Shatrughan Prasad Pandey Aged About 48 Years R/o Pujaripara Jaibel District Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Co-Operative Society, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). 5 - The Collector, Bastar, District Bastar At Jagdalpur (C.G.). 6 - District Marketing Officer, Bastar, District Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 7 - District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur, District Bastar At Jagdalpur (C.G.). 8 - District Food Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar At Jagdalpur (C.G.). 9 - The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar At Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner :Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate. For State :Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, GA. For Respondent No. 3/ MARKFED :Shri Mayank Kumar, Advocate. For District cooperative Central Bank :Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities concerned pertaining to case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue restraining the respondents from the recovery of any loss of paddy due delay in lifting of paddy by the respondent itself and for which loss of moisture the said loss must be counted in driage and further pleased to direct the respondents to 3 consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the agreement in the facts and circumstances. 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue restraining the respondents from adopting the unlawful act for the recovery of the loss which is due to the respondents own fault. 10.4 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do -issue directing the respondent to follow the policy framed in this regard for the resolution of the dispute 10.5 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case, as canvassed by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a duly registered co-operative society engaged in procurement of paddy from farmers under the procurement policy and guidelines issued by the respondent authorities. The petitioner is entitled to the protection of his constitutional and legal rights under the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the procurement policy and the agreement executed with the respondent authorities, the petitioner society procured paddy from farmers, stored the same at the designated procurement centre, and awaited its lifting by Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 for onward distribution to rice millers. Although the petitioner duly discharged its obligations, the respondents failed to lift the entire stock within the prescribed period. The State Government's 4 procurement policy mandates timely lifting of paddy by the concerned authorities. Recognizing delays in lifting and the consequential loss in weight due to natural moisture evaporation (driage), Respondent No. 9 issued Memo dated 01.01.2026 directing that paddy be lifted within one month, failing which the concerned societies would be entitled to exemption from loss in weight and the Food Department at the Collectorate would prepare proposals for such exemption (Annexure P/4). Despite the aforesaid directions, Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 failed to lift the petitioner's paddy within the stipulated period and also ignored subsequent communications, directing issuance of T.O./D.O. for lifting of paddy on or before 24.12.2025. The petitioner also submitted representations requesting timely lifting of the stock (Annexure P/3), but no effective action was taken. Owing to the respondents' inordinate delay, the paddy remained stored for an extended period, resulting in a natural reduction in weight due to loss of moisture. The procurement policy contains no provision authorizing recovery from the procurement society on account of such natural driage where the delay is attributable to the respondents themselves. Instead, the policy contemplates preparation of proposals for condonation or exemption of such loss. Contrary to the Government policy and without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, the respondents initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner 5 for the alleged shortage in weight caused solely due to natural moisture loss. Hence these petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents in seeking recovery of the alleged shortage in weight of paddy is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law, being contrary to the procurement policy and the facts and circumstances of the present case. She further submits that the shortage in weight is solely attributable to natural loss of moisture (driage) caused by the inordinate delay of Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 in lifting the paddy from the procurement centre, despite repeated Government directions and representations made by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be penalized for a loss occasioned by the respondents' own default. The State Government itself, by issuing circulars and instructions, acknowledged that delayed lifting of paddy results in natural loss of weight and specifically provided that, in such cases, proposals for condonation/exemption of the loss should be forwarded by the competent authorities. Instead of following the prescribed procedure, the respondents have illegally resorted to coercive recovery proceedings against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the procurement policy contains no provision authorizing recovery from procurement societies for natural loss in weight due to evaporation of moisture where the delay in lifting is attributable to the respondent authorities. Consequently, the impugned 6 recovery is without authority of law. Paddy procured during the months of November to January naturally contains higher moisture content. When such stock is not lifted within the stipulated period and is kept in storage, the moisture inevitably evaporates, resulting in a reduction in weight. Such natural driage cannot be treated as a shortage or misappropriation attributable to the petitioner. The respondents themselves directed procurement of paddy beyond the available storage capacity, resulting in the stock being stored in open premises and exposed to natural elements such as sunlight, rain, rodents, and other unavoidable causes, thereby increasing the possibility of deterioration and weight loss. The petitioner cannot be held liable for consequences arising from the respondents' own administrative lapses. The respondents cannot be permitted to recover from the petitioner losses which have occurred solely due to their own negligence and failure to lift the stock within the prescribed time. Such action amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and is liable to be quashed. She next submits that the impugned action has been taken without following the principles of natural justice, including issuance of any show-cause notice or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, rendering the recovery proceedings illegal and unsustainable. The impugned action is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the petitioner' fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Further this Court, in WPC 7 No. 2324 of 2026, Bhagwan Singh Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh, by order dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P/5), has already considered similar facts and issues and granted appropriate relief. The present case is squarely covered by the said decision and deserves to be decided on the same principles. 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 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 petitions as 8 framed and filed by the petitioner are 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 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 कोई सूखत मात्रा मान्य नीं ोगी। 16.3 धान के परि$वन ेतु हिनधारि$त परि$वनकता द्वा$ा परि$वन न हिकये र्जाने प$ आवश्यकतानुसा$ स्वीकृ त परि$वन द$ प$ हिकसी भी परि$वनकता से परि$वन का काय क$ाया र्जा सकता ै। माक फे ड द्वा$ा परि$वन नीं क$ाये र्जाने की स्थिस्3तित में स्वीकृ त परि$वन द$ प$ सहिमतितयों द्वा$ा धान का परि$वन क$ाया र्जावे। इस ेतु सहिमतित उसे धान भण्डा$ण व सु$क्षा मद अ3वा प्रासंहिगक व्यय के मद में प्रदत्त अहिग्रम $ाशि> का उपयोग परि$वन देयकों के भुगतान ेतु क$ सके गी त3ा ऐसे व्यय की प्रतितपूर्तित हिवपणन संघ द्वा$ा सहिमतित को की र्जाएगी। सहिमतितयों द्वा$ा धान परि$वन क$ाये र्जाने प$ संग्रण के न्द्रों में धान भण्डा$ण क$ने ेतु उतिBत व्यवस्3ा माक फे ड द्वा$ा की र्जावे। 9 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 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 10 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 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 petitions for the reliefs sought by all the petitioner herein. 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 11 proceedings and pass a reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju