1 CGHC010369852026 2026:CGHC:42306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4966 of 2026 1 - Smt. Triveni Devi Tiwari W/o Late Ramdayal Tiwari Aged About 84 Years R/o Village Devrikala, P.S. And Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector (Food) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Podi (Ghutku) Registration No. 668, Through Its Manager, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Podi (Ghutku), District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Takhatpur, Through Its Manager, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. appears on advance copy SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/09/2026 RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction holding that due to illegal action on the part of the official respondents and abuse of administrative power by public bodies petitioner has suffered loss of Rs. 1,80,400/- for which she is legally entitled for with 12% interest from 31.01.2026 till actual payment. 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the title and possession holder of agricultural land admeasuring 12.84 acres, situated at Village Jonki and Devrikala, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.). She was registered under the Paddy Purchase Scheme for the year 2025-26 and was allotted Kisan Code No. FC 4000290160519. As per the scheme, a farmer was entitled to sell paddy up to 21 quintals per acre at the assured rate of Rs.3,100/- per quintal, including bonus. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to have been entitled to sell 250 quintals of paddy. However, tokens were issued to her for only 86 quintals, leaving 164 quintals unsold under the scheme. The petitioner approached the Collector for issuance of further tokens, and her application was forwarded to the State Government for necessary instructions. However, no further token was issued and, after closure of the procurement period on 31.01.2026, the petitioner was compelled to sell the remaining 164 quintals in the open market at the rate of 3 Rs.2,000/- per quintal, allegedly suffering a loss of Rs.1,80,400/-. The petitioner contends that despite her entitlement under the scheme, the respondents failed to issue the requisite tokens and thereby deprived her of the benefit of the assured price. A legal notice was also served upon the Collector, but no action was taken thereon. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner being entitled to sell 250 quintals of common paddy under the Paddy Purchase Scheme at the assured rate of Rs.3,100/- per quintal, the respondent-authorities issued tokens for only 86 quintals and failed to issue further tokens despite the petitioner's repeated requests and her application dated 02.01.2026 submitted before the Collector, Bilaspur. He further submits that, due to such inaction on the part of the respondents and expiry of the procurement period on 31.01.2026, the petitioner was compelled to sell the remaining 164 quintals of paddy in the open market at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per quintal, thereby suffering a loss of Rs.1,80,400/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner's entitlement to sell 250 quintals of paddy is also supported by the certificate issued by the concerned authorities. Hence, according to the petitioner, the action/inaction of the respondents has deprived her of the benefit assured under the scheme. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that a survey was conducted to ascertain the actual area of land held by the petitioner and, thereafter, the tokens were issued on the basis of the actual rakba found during the survey. He, therefore, submits that the tokens were 4 issued to the petitioner in accordance with her entitlement under the Paddy Purchase Scheme. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the rival submissions of the parties, it is evident that there is a dispute with regard to the actual entitlement of the petitioner to sell 250 quintals of paddy under the Paddy Purchase Scheme for the Kharif Marketing Year 2025-2026. While the petitioner claims that she was entitled to sell 250 quintals of paddy and that tokens were issued only for 86 quintals, the respondents have taken a stand that the tokens were issued on the basis of the actual rakba found during the survey conducted by the concerned authorities. 7. The Paddy Procurement Policy of the State Government for the Kharif Marketing Season 2025-2026 contains specific provisions governing the procurement and transportation of paddy. Clauses 15.9 and 16.3 of the said Policy provide as under:- 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 पारि$वन के$य र्जव । इसं त& संलिमेंलित उसं धान भीण्ड$ण व सं&$क्षा मेंद 5 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 । 8. Likewise, Clause 16.3 provides for the mechanism for transportation of paddy in the event that the designated transporter fails to transport the paddy. The said clause provides that, where necessary, transportation may be arranged through any transporter at the approved transportation rate and, in the event that MARKFED does not arrange transportation, the committees may undertake the transportation, with the expenses incurred being reimbursed by the Marketing Federation. 9. The petitioner has also entered into an Agreement with the respondents, wherein Clause 5.6 provides for recovery of the amount in case the quantity/value of paddy received by the Marketing Federation from the procurement centre is less than the quantity/value supplied by the Marketing Federation, by adjustment from the commission and other incidental amounts payable to the committee and, in case any amount remains recoverable thereafter, for initiation of recovery proceedings before the competent Court under the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 10. Likewise, Clause 13 of the Agreement provides a mechanism for resolution of disputes arising out of any clause of the Agreement through arbitration. The said clause reads as under:- 13- vkfCkZVªs'ku %& 6 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” 11. 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 petitioner ought to have invoked arbitration clause in respect of her grievance. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition for the reliefs sought by the petitioner herein. 12. In view of the above, the petitioner is relegated to raise her dispute 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. 13. 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 7 pass a reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 14. With these observations/directions, the Petition stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi