1 CGHC010095372022 2026:CGHC:38345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1494 of 2022 1 - Khemraj Jaiswal S/o Ambika Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Gatadiha, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Society, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar, Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Naib Tahsildar, Up-Tahsil Bhatgaon, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Society Manager, Primary Agriculture Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti, Gatadiha (1434), Procurement Center Manpasar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.01 14:10:53 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment in respect of entire quantity of seized paddy (103) bags and also grant compensation in favour of the petitioner, in place of return of 103 bags of paddy. 10.2 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been preferred against the inaction on the part of respondent No.3/Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in not duly and effectively deciding the petitioner’s application/representation dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure P/4). He submits that although, pursuant to the order dated 23.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.4706 of 2021, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 31.01.2022 directing return of 103 bags of paddy to the petitioner, upon approaching respondent No.5, the petitioner was offered paddy which was about five years old and of inferior quality, instead of the paddy 3 seized from him. It is, therefore, submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner in his representation has not been duly addressed. He, accordingly, prays for a direction to respondent No.3/Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, particularly in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the limited relief sought, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), to consider and decide the petitioner’s application/representation dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure P/4), in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party, and the competent authority shall take a decision strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju