1 2026:CGHC:13665 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1258 of 2026 Ramashankar Chandrakar S/o Shri Manik Lal Aged About 37 Years Occupation Sales Man/ In Charge Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Kodva Godam, R/o Village Nanapuri, Ps Kunda, Tehesil Pandariya , District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department , Mahanadi, Bhavan , Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Through Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh 6th Floor, Tower C Cbd , Sector- 21 Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Deputy Commissioner Co- Operative And Deputy Registrar Co- Operative Societies, Kabirdham , District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 6 - District Mark - Fed Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Chandrakar, Adv. thro. VC and Mr. Sourabh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1,2 & 5/State : Mr. Soumitra Kehsarwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondents 3 & 4 : Ms. Khyati Adil Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shashak Thakur, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 23.03.2026 BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.03.25 14:11:09 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly issue writ in the nature of mandamus may be directed to respondent No./2 to decide & passed the speaking order of pending representations (Ann. P/1 and P/2) in terms of Clause 14 of the Agreement within a period of 60 days in according to law. The Collector/respondent no/2 in – turn shall also adjudicate upon the grounds raised by the petitioner and will also be at liberty to invoke Clause – 14 of the as well as in light of order passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.2651 of 2025 (Revaram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the post of Sales-man and also working as in charge of Paddy Procurement Centre of Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti, Kodva Godam. The petitioner purchased paddy under the Policy formulated by the respondents. According to the tripartite agreement entered into between the parties, last cut-off date for lifting of paddy in the kharif season 2024-25 was till 31.01.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner purchased the paddy. In the said agreement entered into between the parties, it is an obligation on the part of respondent Marketing Federation to lift paddy from the Procurement Centre and to store in particular place within specified period. However, respondents - Marketing Federation failed to lift paddy purchased by petitioner society within specified time from the date of its purchase. Entire paddy purchased by society was dumped in the open sky at Paddy Procurement Centre under direct sunlight due to which, moisture of paddy dried and had suffered loss of weight. It is further submitted that after lifting and transportation of paddy from Paddy Procurement Centre, the petitioner has been harassed by the respondent authorities through the Police administration by calling him in the police 3 station, keeping him sitting there for whole day and also threatening to register case against him, without following the due procedure as provided under the Policy formulated by the State Government, providing the petitioner an opportunity to explain as to whether, there is any loss or not. The petitioner is also being called by the authorities and being threatened to fulfill the loss due to shortage of paddy, without there being any proper assessment/enquiry of the shortage. The action on the part of the respondents is per se illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that in this regard, the petitioner filed applications dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure-P/2 and 24.02.2026 (Annexure-P/1) stating therein that the he is not responsible for the alleged shortage and further requesting for appropriate action should be taken as per the agreement. However, aforesaid representation have not been decided yet by respondent No.2, hence, it is prayed that this petitioner may be disposed of at this stage directing Collector, Distt. Kabirdham/respondent No.2 to decide the aforesaid applications filed by the petitioner by following the procedures as contemplated in the agreement. 3. In reply, learned counsel for the State submits that upon completion of upliftment and transportation of paddy purchased by the petitioner at Paddy Procurement Centre, shortage of paddy was found and the petitioner could not give proper and satisfactory reply in this regard, therefore, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on Clause 5.6 and 13 of the tripartite agreement. He also does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on the order passed by this Court in similar writ petitions. Learned counsel for the State also submits that as the loss of paddy is causing loss to State exchequer, therefore, the Collector has issued a direction to initiate appropriate proceedings. However, he submits 4 that in respect of representations/applications filed by the petitioner, appropriate steps shall be taken. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with a copy of order dated 27.5.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench in WPC No.2651/2025 (Revaram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.). 5. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly that no action can be taken against the petitioner as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in respect of shortage in the quantity of paddy and that too unless and until some enquiry is conducted. Clause 506 of the Tripartite Agreement reads as under:- “5.6-
पणन संघ ारा दाय की गई रा से उपान के  (स
) ारा धान
पणन संघ को क ा! होने पर ेष रा की सूली स
 को दाय कीन एं अय अनुसां
गक द* से रा की कटौी की ाेगी । इसके उपरां भी सूली यो0य रा ेष रहने पर 1ला
पणन अधकारी ारा छ.ग. रा3य सहकारी सोसायटी अध
नय 1960 के अंग सूली कायाही हेु स4 यायालय 5 करण द
कया ाेगा ।” 6. Clause 13 of the Tripartite Agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute between the parties, reads as under:- “13- आ89ट:ेन :— इस अनु9ंध की
कसी भी क;<=का से सं9ंध
ाद उ>प? होने की ;@A 5
ाद के
नणय हेु 1ले 5 1ला कलेBटर का
नणय अ; होगा ो उभयप4* को ाय होगा। कलेBटर ारा
दये गये
नणय की अपील उभयप4* ारा सं9ंध 1ले के संभागीय आयुC को की ा सके गी। ...” 7. Under clause 5.6 of the Agreement, there is specific provision as to the recovery of the loss suffered by the Marketing Federation to be made from the concerned Society, wherein primarily, it is to be recovered from the commission and other heads for which the Society is entitled for their services rendered in paddy procurement. If further amount is left, then the recovery proceedings is to be initiated under the Co-operative Societies Act, 5 1960. 8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, aforementioned relevant clauses of the tripartite agreement and order passed by the Coordinate Bench in WPC No.2651/202, which also pertains to similarly situated petitioner and further considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 /Collector, Distt. Kabirdham to decide the representations/applications dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure-P/2) and 24.02.2026 (Annexure-P/1) filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini