1 CGHC010258132021 2026:CGHC:34450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4069 of 2021 1 - M/s. Kabir Rice Mill Bothali Road, Kurud, Dist. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Through Its Sole Properietor, Godavari Bai Chenwani, R/o Ward No. 1, Sanjay Nagar, Shikshak Colony, Dhamtari, Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G) 493663 --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principle Secretary, Industries Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 492001 2 - Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing(Mandi Board, Telibandha Chowk, Beej Bhawan, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 492006 3 - General Manager, District Commerce And Industries Centre, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 493663 4 - The Secretary, Krishi Uppaj Mandi Samiti, Kurud - District- Dhamtari. 5 - The Union of India Through Its Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice. --- Respondents RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.17 12:20:01 +0530 2 WPC No. 383 of 2023 1 - M/s Kabir Rice Mill, Bothali Road, Kurud, Dist. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Through Its Sole Properietor, Godavari Bai Chenwani W/o Shri Kisan Chand Chenwani, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Ward No. 1 Sanjay Nagar, Shikshak Colony, Dhamtari, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh - 493663 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary. 2 - Chattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board Telibandha Chowk, Beej Bhawan, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492006. 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principle Secretary, Industries Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh – 492001. --- Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. For Respective Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. Since the common facts and grounds involved in both the petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPC No. 4069 of 2021 are being referred. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm engaged in trading and processing of agricultural produce, 3 predominantly paddy and rice, at Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). The petitioner was granted exemption from Mandi Shulk for the period from 03.12.2014 to 02.12.2019 vide exemption certificate dated 18.09.2018. However, during the intervening period, the petitioner deposited Rs.43,35,452/- towards Mandi Shulk and thereafter sought refund/adjustment of the said amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the exemption, the respondents are demanding further Mandi Shulk and threatening to restrict future transactions. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate reliefs:- “10.1. This Hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in quashing and setting aside the demand notices (Annexure P-1). 10.2. This Hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to refund the money collected from the petitioner as Market Fee/Mandi Shulk with interest @ 18% per annum for the exemption period granted under exemption certificate (Annexure P-3) and for the period after commencement of the effect of the FPTCPF Act, 2020 (i.e. 27.09.2020). 10.3. This Hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in granting the cost and any other relief to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand notice dated 07.09.2021 passed in WPC No. 4069 of 2021 and the cancellation order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.), are bad in law and deserve to be quashed/set aside, as no market fee is 4 payable by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondents are duty bound to refund the market fee already collected. He next submits that the impugned cancellation order has been passed on allegations of misconduct without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi and Mandi Board, per contra, would submit that the finding that the petitioner has collected fees from the customer has been given after asking the petitioner about the same by the concerned Mandi and hence the finding that the petitioner has collected the fee from the customers is just and proper and the rejection of refund as sought for by the petitioner is with sufficient reason and there is no illegality in the rejection of the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned orders, particularly the demand notice dated 07.09.2021 passed in WPC No. 4069 of 2021 and the cancellation order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 6. From perusal of the impugned orders, it is manifest that the authorities have observed that the petitioner has collected the fee from its respective customer/purchaser and as the petitioner has already collected the fee from its respective customers, no 5 question arises to refund the same to the petitioner. It appears from the demand notice dated 07.09.2021 that the finding has been recorded without any examination and without observing the principles of natural justice and only on assumption that the petitioner has collected the fee from the customers, the application for refund has been rejected. 7. The order impugned does not reflect that any explanation sought from the petitioner and there is no consideration about the explanation, if any, made by the petitioner. Refusal of the application of the petitioner for refund of fee is a non-speaking and unreasoned order that too without examining the fact as to whether the petitioner has collected the fee from their respective customers or not. 8. In view of foregoing, in all the petitions the demand notice and the cancellation order passed by the respondent Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are quashed. 9. As a sequel, both the writ petitions are allowed. However, the respondent/Mandi Board is directed to pass a fresh order by examining the fact as to whether the petitioner has collected the fee in question from its respective customers or not by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the petitioner has deposited the Market fee during the exemption period or not. 6 10. The petitioner is also directed to produce the documentary evidence before the board showing that he has not collected the alleged fee from his customers. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju