1 CGHC010186512026 2026:CGHC:31969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2944 of 2026 Mukesh Kalhari S/o Balmukund Aged About 29 Years Present Society Manager Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Gudum R. N. No 236, Paddy Procurement Center Gudum Add- Village Jhalmala Post Jhalmala Tehsil Balod Dist- Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner 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 Distirct- 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.) 492002 4 - The Collector Dist Balod (C.G.) 5 - The District Marketing Officer Dist- Balod (C.G.) 6 - The Chief Executive Officer Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Dist- Balod (C.G.) 8 - The District Food Officer Dist- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.29 09:54:55 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Nitesh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Amit Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well as Mr. Arpit Parakh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aminesh Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court in WPC No.2440/2025 and analogous cases decided on 09.05.2025. 3. This Court while dismissing WPC No.2440/2025 and analogous cases vide order dated 09.05.2025 observed as follows : “7. The core grievance of the petitioner is that he is being held personally liable for weight loss due to natural moisture evaporation in the paddy which was not lifted in time by the Marketing Federation, despite repeated efforts by the petitioner and communications. The Court finds that no prior inquiry was conducted to assess the actual shortfall attributable to the petitioner, if any. The terms of the contract, particularly Clause 5.6 and Clause 13, clearly lay down the procedure for recovery and dispute resolution. Clause 5.6 of the Agreement reads 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 3 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. Clause 13 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute between the parties, 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 submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant clauses of the agreement, and past practices followed by the State Government as reflected in its communications, this Court is of the opinion that coercive recovery action without first determining the liability through appropriate inquiry and invoking the agreed dispute resolution mechanism, is arbitrary and not sustainable. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the District Collector in terms of Clause 13 of the agreement within three weeks from today. The concerned District Collector shall consider the representation of the petitioner, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation. Till such decision is taken by the concerned Collector, no coercive steps shall be taken against the 4 petitioner pursuant to the impugned letter dated 03.04.2025. It shall also be open to the Collector to consider the applicability of the Government's own circulars and policy letters recognizing natural moisture loss in previous years for reimbursement. 11. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in any inquiry conducted by the respondent authorities regarding the alleged shortage or loss. 12. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case are identical to that of WPC No.2440/2025 and analogous cases, as such, the present writ petition may also be disposed off in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this writ petition are identical to WPC No.2440/2025 and analogous cases, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No.2440/2025 and analogous cases. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in WPC No.2440/2025 and analogous cases. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh