1 2026:CGHC:18383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1393 of 2026 1 - Bhailal Dewangan S/o Lt. Shri Kanhaiyalal Aged About 52 Years Present Assitant Samiti Manager Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bhojtola R.N. No. 1112, Paddy Procurement Centre Bhojtola Add- Village Mohala Post- Mohala Tehsil Mohala Dist- Mohla, Manpur Ambagadh Chowki (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co- Oprative Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Suppliers Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Office At 6th Floor Tower -C Commercial Complex Cbd Sector 21 Atal Nagar District- Raipur Cg 492002 4 - The Commissioner (Revenue ) Durg Division (C.G.) 5 - The Collector Dist- Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 6 - The District Marketing Officer Dist- Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 7 - The Chief Executive Officer Corrperative Central Bank Maryadiy Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 8 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Dist- Mohla, Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 9 - The District Food Officer Distt- Mohla, Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 & 6 : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22.04.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to impugned action of the respondents for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the the order dated 29/07/2025 and 18/10/2024 passed by the commissioner in appeal and collector in arbitration proceeding. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give also the protection of shortage due to dryness as earlier provided as well as same to be protection granted to the millars as in the order dated 15/05/2024 (P/6). 3 10.4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to provide excess amount which has been invest to protect the paddy after 31st March to till date and zero shortage incentive (Protsahan) Amount. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to 7 to stop harass the petitioner by making pressure through police to fill Zero shortage from own- cost. 10.6 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to to direct the respondent No.3 to 7 to make an enquiry and about the shortage is due to dry and find the liable person for punishment. 10.7. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondents not to take any coercive action including registration of FIR or recovery against the petitioners. 10.8. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case :- The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that under the State’s paddy procurement policy, cooperative societies purchase paddy from farmers at MSP within the stipulated season, with an obligation upon the authorities and millers to lift the stock within the prescribed time; however, due to failure of MARKFED and millers to timely transport the procured paddy, the stock suffered weight loss and damage despite due care by the societies. Nevertheless, the respondent authorities arbitrarily held 4 the societies liable for alleged shortages, initiated criminal proceedings, and made unilateral recoveries from their commission without proper enquiry, also depriving them of incentive amounts and imposing losses on account of defective materials supplied. The petitioner, challenging such arbitrary action, initially approached this Hon’ble Court and was relegated to arbitration; however, the arbitration application was rejected by the Collector without due consideration, and the subsequent appeal before the Commissioner was dismissed ex parte and later on merits without affording proper opportunity, compelling the petitioner to file the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 18.10.2024 and 29.07.2025 are arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has duly complied with all policy guidelines and contractual obligations, and the alleged shortage occurred solely due to natural drying of paddy caused by excessive heat and delayed lifting by the respondents. Despite repeated requests, the authorities failed to ensure timely transportation in breach of the procurement policy and tri-partite agreement, and have unjustly shifted liability upon the petitioner while extending undue protection to millers. The orders passed by the learned Collector and the Appellate Authority are mechanical, without proper appreciation of facts and law, and have deprived the petitioner of an effective remedy, rendering the impugned actions 5 unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 submits that the learned Commissioner, Durg, has erroneously held the appeal to be not maintainable. It is further submitted that, in terms of the tri- partite agreement (Annexure P/2) executed between the parties, Clause 14 expressly provides that in the event of any dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement, the decision of the District Collector shall be final and binding upon the parties, with a further right of appeal vested in the aggrieved party before the Divisional Commissioner having jurisdiction. It is contended that the Commissioner was duly vested with the jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the appeal; however, he has wrongly declined to exercise such jurisdiction by holding the appeal to be not maintainable. Accordingly, it is prayed that the matter be remitted back to the concerned Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection and particularly, the orders impugned herein. 6. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte before the Appellate Authority, resulting in dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 15.07.2025 along with an application under Section 5 of 6 the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. However, the learned Commissioner rejected the same on the ground of limitation, holding that no sufficient cause had been shown, and further proceeded to observe that the appeal itself was not maintainable. A careful reading of the order indicates that the Commissioner has not only declined to condone the delay but has also ventured into the question of maintainability and, in effect, decided the matter on merits. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the approach adopted by the learned Commissioner is legally unsustainable. Clause 14 of the agreement explicitly provides for a right of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the decision of the District Collector. In view of such a stipulation, the finding that the appeal is not maintainable is clearly erroneous and contrary to the contractual framework governing the parties. Furthermore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the restoration application deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. 8. Accordingly, the delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. The impugned order dated 29.07.2025 is set aside to the extent indicated herein, and the concerned Commissioner is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and decide the same afresh on merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all parties and keeping in view Clause 14 of the 7 agreement, independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made herein. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the concerned Commissioner shall adjudicate the appeal uninfluenced by any observations contained in this order. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned authority as and when the matter is taken up for hearing. 10. With these observations and directions this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena