1 CGHC010128272022 2026:CGHC:41930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1840 of 2022 Harishankar Banjara, S/o- Shri Nandkumar Banjara, Aged About 24 Years, Occupation - Incharge Paddy Procurement Center Dullapur, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Tedhadhaura (Reg.No. 956), R/o- Narayanpur, Police Station- Fasterpur, Tahsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Mo.No. 8817525529, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station - Rakhi, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex CBD, Sector 21, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Mungeli, Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh., 5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Mungeli, Tahsil and District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station - Civil Line, Tahsil and District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.29 19:30:04 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer and Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 26/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks 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 direct to the respondent no. 4 to 6 to make an enquiry that who is the responsible for loss/damage/rotten of the stock of the paddy within the knowledge of the petitioner, thereafter takes action accordance with agreement/law against the responsible person, is 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. 3 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the In-Charge of Paddy Procurement Center Dullapur, managed by Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Tedhadhaura, District Mungeli (C.G.). On 01.12.2021, a tri- party agreement was executed among the petitioner, Respondent No. 5, and the Nodal Officer of Respondent No. 6- Bank for the purchase of paddy crops during the Kharif Marketing Year 2021–2022. During the purchase period (01.12.2021 to 07.02.2022), the petitioner purchased 33,489.20 quintals of paddy, out of which 17,579.10 quintals were delivered to millers, 14,896.69 quintals were delivered to the Collection Center and a balance stock of 1,013.41 quintals remained at the procurement center. Due to continuous heavy rains on 08.12.2021 and 15.12.2021, the stored paddy became submerged, causing substantial rotting and damage due to natural factors beyond the petitioner's control. Although Respondent No. 5 was obligated under Clause 2.8 of the agreement to lift the paddy on or before 28.02.2022, they failed to issue the requisite Transportation Orders (T.O.) or Delivery Orders (D.O.) as mandated under Clauses 6.1 and 7, leaving the stock unlifted. Despite the petitioner’s readiness to deliver the stock, Respondent No. 4 orally summoned, threatened and instructed the petitioner on 06.04.2022 to personal liability, directing the deposit of the alleged loss amount within three days under threat of disciplinary action and lodging an FIR. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have similarly exerted pressure without conducting any formal inquiry into the cause of damage. Under Clause 5.6 of the agreement, operational losses are recoverable only from the commission payable to the Society (and not from the petitioner 4 in a personal capacity); under Clause 9, losses caused by natural disasters are to be recovered via insurance claims; and under Clause 14, disputes are subject to arbitration. By demanding personal recovery and bypassing these statutory/contractual mechanisms without due inquiry, Respondents No. 4 to 6 have acted arbitrarily. 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 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 5 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 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 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 केई संखत मेंत्रा मेंन्य न गी!। 16.3 धान के पारि$वन त& लिनधारि$त पारि$वनकेत द्वा$ पारि$वन न हिकेय र्जन पा$ आवश्यकेतन&सं$ स्व!के+ त पारि$वन द$ पा$ हिकेसं! भी! पारि$वनकेत सं पारि$वन के केय के$य र्ज संकेत .। मेंके फे ड द्वा$ पारि$वन न के$य र्जन के1 स्थिस्3लित में स्व!के+ त पारि$वन द$ पा$ संलिमेंलितय द्वा$ धान के 6 पारि$वन के$य र्जव । इसं त& संलिमेंलित उसं धान भीण्ड$ण व सं&$क्षा मेंद अ3व प्रासंलिगीके व्यय के मेंद में प्रादत्त अलिग्रमें $लि< के उपायगी पारि$वन द यके के भी&गीतन त& के$ संके गी! त3 ऐसं व्यय के1 प्रालितपालित विवपाणन संघ द्वा$ संलिमेंलित के के1 र्जएगी!। संलिमेंलितय द्वा$ धान पारि$वन के$य र्जन पा$ संग्रण के न्द्रों में धान भीण्ड$ण के$न त& उलि@त व्यवस्3 मेंके फे ड द्वा$ के1 र्जव । 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 concerned Society 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” 7 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. 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 approaches the concerned authorities for arbitration concerning any dispute covered under the said clause, the 8 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 Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay