1 CGHC010366652026 2026:CGHC:41482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4775 of 2026 Lalu Ram Korche S/o Ramprasad Korche Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Computer Operator/ Data Entry Operator Paddy Procurement Center Kachhe Lams Bhanupratappur R/o Village Hafri, Post Bheja P.S. Korar, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station - Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector (Co-Operative Branch) Uttar-Bastar-Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex C B D, Sector 21, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies Uttar-Bastar-Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Executive Officer District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadit Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 7 - Manager, Lams Bhanupratappur, Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Bhanupratappur, Registration No. 358, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 8 - Authorized Officer, Lams Bhanupratappur, Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Bhanupratappur, Registration No. 358, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA For Respondent No. 3 & 5 : Mr. Prakshay Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Harshal Chauhan, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seek the following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2026 passed by the respondent no.4 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Manager cum In-charge at Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bhanbeda Lams. 3 On 27.08.2026 the Respondent no. 7 & 8 has issued a letter to the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of shortage 1829.47 Qt. approx of paddy 1829.47 quintal which is violation of natural justice and without following the proper process of law but and thereafter the delivery order (D.O.) has also issued to the miller but the miller could not lift the paddy within prescribed period by virtue of that the huge loss of paddy has been made and that burden has been shifted to the petitioner for recovery of that loss the notice dated 27.08.2026 has been issued by the Deputy Registrar loss of 5673837.00 crore, which is under challenged moreover the agreement for paddy purchased has been published on 06.11.2025 but the respondent authority without following agreement clause i.e. clause no. 13 arbitration before the Arbitrator- Collector has not been initiated which is violation of the agreement and the recovery proceeding has been initiated before the registrar which is unauthorized. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the that the petitioner’s request to transport/lift the paddy from the Paddy Procurement Centre was not considered by the concerned respondent authorities. Since the stock of paddy was stored in the open sky, it suffered natural weight loss and damage due to environmental factors i.e. extreme heat and rain. Thus, he prays to allow the petition. 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 4 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 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 petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is 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 drayage 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 representations 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- 5 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। 7. A perusal of the aforesaid clauses would show that the State Government has framed a Policy, according to which, no drayage 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 concerned Society has entered 6 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 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 concerned petitioner ought to have invoked arbitration clause in respect of shortage of paddy. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition for the reliefs sought by the petitioner herein. 7 10. In view of the above, the petitioner is relegated to raise his 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 proceedings and pass a reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. With these observations/directions, the Petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL