1 2026:CGHC:19767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2014 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Singh Parihar S/o- Late Bhagwan Singh Parihar, Aged About 67 Years R/o- Choubey Colony, College Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Co-Operative Society Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector, Office Of The Collectorate Durg, District- Durg (C.G.). 3 - The Tahsildar, Office Of The Tahsildar, Amleshwar, District- Durg (C.G.). 4 - Mandi Sub Inspector, Mandi Office At Amleshwar, Police Station And Tahsil- Amleshwar, District- Durg (C.G.). 5 - Incharge Samiti Prabandhak, Ghughuwa, Seva Sahkari Samiti, Procurement Center Ghughuwa, District- Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Barik, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the explanation from the respondent No.2 to 5 as to how they have seized the paddy of petitioner by which act the paddy (118quintal) was not procured before last date i.e.31/01/2026. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to execute the scheme of the State Government, the farmer will get appropriate benefit of paddy and if the farmer sale the paddy into the shop then the benefit would not be appropriate looking to the rate given by the society and petitioner has been deprived from his right. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give suitable direction to the respondent No.2 to 5 to release the seized paddy and made arrangement of procurement of the paddy of petitioner which was not procured on time i.e. before 31/01/2026 due to the improper act of respondent No.2 to 5. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and 3 circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is not challenging any specific order but is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent authorities, particularly respondents No. 2 to 5, who are entrusted with the responsibility of procuring paddy from farmers at designated procurement centres; that it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while the State has a statutory obligation to facilitate procurement of paddy at the Minimum Support Price (MSP), any failure on the part of the State or its agencies, including delays in lifting procured paddy from procurement centres, amounts to breach of statutory duty as well as contractual obligations, and recent judicial pronouncements have reiterated the liability of the State for such lapses; that, in the present case, a tripartite arrangement exists between the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation, the District Cooperative Central Bank, and the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies for procurement and storage of paddy, wherein the Federation is obligated to lift the procured paddy within a stipulated period of 72 hours or within the prescribed timeframe; that the petitioner, being a farmer, had his paddy registered and tokens were issued for procurement of quantities of 120 quintals on 28.11.2023, 130 quintals on 28.01.2024, 76 quintals on 17.01.2025, 200 quintals on 12.12.2024, out of which only 214 quintals were procured and the remaining 321 quintals 4 were returned to the petitioner due to failure of the respondent authorities to lift the paddy within time; that as per the Chhattisgarh Paddy Procurement Rules, 2025, the last date for procurement is 31.01.2026, and if the petitioner’s paddy is not accepted and procured within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and be deprived of the benefits of the procurement scheme due to no fault of his own; and that in these circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to discharge their statutory obligations and ensure procurement of the petitioner’s paddy in accordance with law. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite the petitioner having duly deposited his paddy at the concerned Co- operative Society in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the same has not been procured by the respondent authorities, thereby causing serious prejudice and financial hardship to the petitioner; it is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to ensure immediate purchase of the petitioner’s paddy in accordance with the applicable rules and policy. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that a specific deadline had been fixed for procurement of paddy, namely 31st January, 2026, which was subsequently extended up to 5th February, 2026, and thereafter no further 5 extension has been granted; it is therefore contended that, in view of the expiry of the prescribed procurement period, it is not feasible for the State or the concerned authorities to now purchase the paddy of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including direction to the respondent authorities to procure the remaining paddy, release the allegedly seized paddy, and extend the benefit of the State procurement scheme, however, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is not challenging any specific order but is aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the respondent authorities in not procuring the entire quantity of paddy within the stipulated period. It is also an admitted position that, as per the applicable Paddy Procurement Policy/Rules, the last date for procurement of paddy was 31.01.2026, which was extended up to 05.02.2026, and thereafter no further extension was granted by the competent authority. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents failed to lift the paddy in time and thereby deprived him of the benefit of the procurement scheme has been duly considered; however, in absence of any subsisting procurement period or any policy permitting procurement beyond the prescribed deadline, this Court is of the considered opinion that no writ of mandamus 6 can be issued directing the State or its agencies to procure paddy after expiry of the statutory or policy-based time limit. 7. 7. The power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to ensure enforcement of legal rights within the framework of law, and not to direct authorities to act contrary to the prescribed policy or beyond the stipulated time frame. 8. In view of the aforesaid, and considering that the procurement period has already expired, the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat