Toman Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:44973

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2429 of 2025

¶6

Naresh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Chinta Ram Yadav Aged About 54 Years Samiti Prabandhak/ Incharge Samiti Prabandhak, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Jalbandha, Registration No. 977 District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh Present Address R/o Village Jalbandha, Police Station, Block, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Managing Director Markfed Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Collector Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai District KhairagarhChhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - The District Cooperative Officer Markfed, Khairagarh-ChhuikhadanGandai Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - The Deputy Commissioner/ Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

2

¶16

WPC No. 2499 of 2025

¶17

Toman Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Laxman Sahu Aged About 37 Years Samiti Prabandhak/ Incharge Samiti Prabandhak , Prathmik Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vicharpur Procurement Center (Thelkadih ), Registration No. Dr/ Drg/ 980 District - Khairagah Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) Present Address R/o Village Tilaibath Post Charbhatha Tahsil Khairagarh District - Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.)

¶18

--- Petitioner(s)

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Cooperative Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex Atal Nagar New Raipur (C.G.)

¶21

2 - The Managing Director Markfed, Chhattisgarh District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶22

3 - Collector Khairagarh Chhuikhadan - Gandai District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.)

¶23

4 - The District Cooperative Officer Markfed Khairagarh Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.)

¶24

5 - The Deputy Commissioner / Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society District - Khairagarh Chhuikhadan -Gandai (C.G.)

¶25

--- Respondent(s)

¶26

WPC No. 2475 of 2025

¶27

Santosh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Sanwat Ram Verma Aged About 50 Years Samiti Prabandhak/ Incharge Samiti Prabandhak, Prathmik Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Mohara, Registration No. Dr/drg/1574 District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Present Address R/o Village And Post Mohara, Police Station Block, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶28

--- Petitioner(s)

¶29

Versus

¶30

3

¶31

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶32

2 - The Managing Director Markfed, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶33

3 - Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶34

4 - The District Cooperative Officer Markfed, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶35

5 - The Deputy Commissioner/ Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶36

--- Respondent(s)

¶37

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶38

----------------------------------- For Petitioners	---------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Shivank Mishra, Advocate.
For the State	: Ms. Satish Gupta, GA.
For the MARKFED	: Mr. Harshal Chouhan & Mr. N. Naha Roy,
	Advocates.

¶39

------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶40

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶41

Order on Board

¶42

03/09/2025

¶43

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard finally.

¶44

Since the identical issue is involved in all the writ petitions, they are being heard and disposed of together by this common order.

¶45

Since, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in the above writ petitions are same and one with certain variations, therefore, WPC

¶46

4

¶47

No.2429/2025 is taken as lead petition for deciding the issues involved in these cases. The reliefs sought in the said petition is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶48

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order vide communication dated 25/04/2025.

¶49

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order directing the respondents authority to comply with the communication dated 12/11/2024 by Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection State of Chhattisgarh.

¶50

10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate direction commanding and directing the respondents authority to pay the all expenses borne by the petitioner to keep the paddy safe.

¶51

10.4 That the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the benefit of loss of paddy due to dryness and change of climatic conditions in light of clarification communicated vide letter dated 12/11/2024.

¶52

10.5 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner..”

¶53

The petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved by the acts of the respondents-authorities by which the paddy collected by them as per guidelines of the State Government is not being lifted. The entire quantity of paddy which has been purchased by the

¶54

5

¶55

petitioner-societies are not being lifted due to which the paddy is drying and its weight, quantity and quality is decreasing day by day. The stock of paddy has crossed buffer limit, however, the last date for purchasing the paddy has been expired but the quantity purchased could not be lifted only due to adamant acts of the respondents-authorities especially by the State Authorities. On the one hand, the paddy is not being lifted and the weight of the paddy is being reduced due to driage of the paddy for which the petitioners are not responsible and on the other hand, the concerned managers and employees of the society are being threatened for lodging complaints against them, till date order is not being issued.

¶56

The grievance of the petitioners is that, most of the petitioners, who are Society Managers, procured paddy at their respective procurement centers as per the policy/guidelines issued by the State Government for the year 2024-2025. The policy was clarified on 12.01.2024, specifying the time limit for lifting the paddy to be 31.01.2025. Subsequently, another notification was issued, extending the deadline for lifting the paddy to 19.02.2025, and then further extended until 28.02.2025. Despite these extensions, the entire stock of paddy is yet to be lifted.

¶57

The petitioners argue that, although a significant portion of the paddy has been lifted from their respective procurement centers, a

¶58

6

¶59

substantial quantity remains to be lifted. The Union of the petitioners' societies has raised this issue, and some instructions were issued by the respondents-authorities; however, these measures have not sufficiently addressed petitioners' grievances. The procurement centers lack adequate space to store the paddy under proper shelter, and in many centers, paddy is stored in open fields. As a result, due to delayed lifting, the paddy becomes dry, and its weight decreases day by day. Additionally, environmental factors beyond control such as insects, crows, rabbits, birds, etc., cause further loss in quantity, which is unavoidable. The procurement centers also lack proper infrastructure, such as proper ground preparation and fencing, to store the paddy effectively. The petitioners are facing significant difficulties in maintaining the quality of the procured paddy under these conditions. While the paddy was initially procured during the winter season, as the season changes to summers, the driage further reduces the total quantity of paddy stored at these centers. The petitioners seek a directive from the Court for two fold remedies; Firstly, they request that the respondents be ordered to lift the remaining paddy. Secondly, they seek an order from the State Government and other relevant authorities to make adjustments in respect of reduction in quantity of paddy in each of the gunny bags, so that the petitioners may not

¶60

7

¶61

face financially disadvantage by the loss in quantity due to the delayed lifting and environmental factors.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petitions are being filed against the inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to lift the paddy purchased during the procurement season 2024–2025 finally and in violation of the Government’s procurement policy as also to the terms of the agreement entered between the parties. He further submits that as per Clause 15.8 and 15.9 of the policy dated 12.11.2024, the paddy was to be lifted within one month from the date of purchase, i.e., by 31.01.2025 and despite repeated directions from higher authorities, the lifting has not been carried out till date, resulting in noncompliance with policy provisions. It is further stated that the continued delay has led to substantial quantities of paddy lying in open grounds, exposed to weather variations and deteriorating in quality which is causing direct loss not only to the petitioners but also to the public. He further contended that the petitioners have made several representations before the concerned authorities, but no action has been taken to redress the issue or ensure timely transportation of paddy to the millers or godowns. The inaction is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice

¶63

8

¶64

and also contradicts Clause 2.7 of the agreement, which mandates lifting beyond the buffer limit at the earliest. It is further stated that in previous years, there was a procurement policy under which the deficit in paddy was considered by granting a benefit of one percent or two percent of admissible loss in quantity as the case may be, however, this year, no such policy has been issued by the State Government. As a result, the petitioners are facing difficulties and, therefore, they have approached this Court seeking redressal of their grievances. He lastly contended that issue involved in the present writ petitions has already been considered and decided by this Court vide order dated 12/06/2025 in WPC No.2691 of 2025 and other connected matters, therefore, present writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 12/06/2025.

¶65

Learned State Counsel submit that the reasons provided by the petitioners can be considered to some extent, however, the petitioners are attempting to take advantage of the climatic conditions and the natural driage of the paddy. He submits that the petitioners seek allowing the deficit in the quantity of paddy, which, according to the State, cannot be accepted. He submits that the State Government is expected to take a decision on this matter shortly and once the decision is taken, the petitioners will be informed in accordance with the State Government's decision. He

¶66

9

¶67

lastly contended that he is having no objection if these writ petitions may be disposed of in the terms of the order dated 2/06/2025 passed in WPC No.2691 of 2025.

¶68

Learned counsels for the respondents/MARKFED submit that, regarding the lifting of paddy, the MARKFED is actively lifting the paddy, and it would be incorrect to state that the lifting is not taking place. It is stated that regarding the deficit in paddy, the respondent State may be directed to conduct an inquiry and to take a decision concerning the lifting of the remaining paddy. However, it has been specifically stated that there is no hindrance in the lifting of paddy and there are circulars from the Central Government as well as directions from the State Government, due to which the lifting of paddy is being done repeatedly. It is submitted that the date for lifting the paddy has been extended multiple times and most recently, it was extended through orders dated 19.02.2025, 01.03.2025, and 15.03.2025. As such, the grievance raised by the petitioners has largely been addressed, and only a very small quantity remains. The respondents are confident that the State Government will issue necessary orders concerning the lifting of the remaining paddy from the procurement centers and for the decision regarding the loss of quantity of the paddy, it will be upon the Central and State Governments to take the necessary decisions

¶69

10

¶70

and issue appropriate orders. It is further submitted that the MARKFED is the agency entrusted with lifting the paddy and sending it to the custom milling centers, is fulfilling its responsibilities. It is contended that once the Central Government, in consultation with the State Government, makes a decision regarding adjustment of the loss of quantity of paddy, the matter will be adjusted in accordance with law and at present, the major part of the petitioners' grievance has already been redressed. However, they lastly contended that they are having no objection if these writ petitions may be disposed of in the terms of the order dated 2/06/2025 passed in WPC No.2691 of 2025.

¶71

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and also gone through the documents appended to the writ petitions.

¶72

Upon perusal of the record, circulars and policies, it appears that the quantity of paddy is being lifted from the concerned procurement centers time to time and the time for lifting paddy has been extended several times. From the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent State, it seems that the State Government is considering a decision regarding the lifting of paddy beyond the extended time. Furthermore, since the paddy has been collected by the concerned procurement centers in accordance with

¶73

11

¶74

Government policy and the agreements entered into by the parties, it is the duty of the State to collect the said paddy whereas for various reasons, the paddy could not be collected on time. Since the State Government has extended the lifting time repeatedly, it is expected that considering the welfare nature of the State, the paddy would be lifted from the concerned procurement centers. This act is to prevent damage to the collected paddy due to the efflux of time, climatic conditions, natural hazards such as mice and other insects and to the fact that the rainy season is proximate.

¶75

The issue now pertains to the loss of paddy due to driage caused by climatic and other conditions beyond the control of the petitioner societies. Since, various factors have contributed to the delay in lifting the paddy, including weather conditions leading to the loss of paddy quantity. While previous years had prescribed limits for driage, no such circular has been issued for the current season and both the Central and State Governments need to take a decision in this matter. Therefore, this Court expects that both the Central and State Governments will frame rules/directions to address this issue. It is unavoidable that the quantity of paddy will be affected by climatic and other factors beyond control. Hence, the State Government, in consultation with the Central Government, must take a decision regarding this matter.

¶76

12

¶77

Responsibility to ensure timely action is on the part of the State, particularly, in the context of public policy and the protection of public interests. Therefore, the State Government must ensure framing and compliance of the public policies timely and take appropriate action when delay occur in implementation of the said policies. Furthermore, the principle of accountability requires that the public grievances are resolved in a timely and efficient manner.

¶78

This aspect of the matter has been considered by the various High Courts including Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill and Others vs. State of Punjab and

¶79

Others , in CWP No.- 20840/2021 wherein it has been held as

¶80

under:-

¶81

“14. In view of the above, we dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:--

¶82

i) The reduction of the driage allowance, as ordered by the Government of India vide its letter dated December 3, 1998, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P8 in C.W.P. No. 833 of 2001, is set aside. In other respects, there has been no challenge.

¶83

ii) Any orders for recovery on account of reduction in driage allowance shall stand quashed."

¶84

As per Union of India, the driage has been determined on the basis of data supplied by the State Government.

¶85

13

¶86

The State in its additional affidavit has submitted that they have claimed driage @ 1% but Central Government has wrongly determined driage less than 1% of MSP. The relevant extracts of additional affidavit of the State read as:-

¶87

"4. That it is submitted that Schedule-II appended with writ petition as Annexure P-5 as observed by the Hon'ble Court in the order dated 01-08-2023, the same has not prepared by the Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Department of Punjab. This is a calculation made by the Department of Food & Public Distribution, Govt. of India on the basis of Stock Flow Statement and not considering the audited balance sheets submitted by Govt. of Punjab. This Schedule has prepared by Procurement Incidental (PI)Cell of Department of Food & Public Distribution Govt. of India on their own & is forming part of Final Finding report of KMS 2014-15. The State of Punjab has claimed full driage @1% of MSP i.e. Rs. 14.00/qtl in respect of all agencies which is clear from the submission of final claims of KMS 2014-15 submitted vide letter no. PRA PRA-Inci-3-34-2017/1868 dated:- 14-092017(copy appended as annexure R-6). Further, as required by Department of Food & Public Distribution, Govt. of India, the Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Punjab and Managing Directors of all State Procuring Agencies had certified that the benefit of driage charges @1% of MSP has already been passed on

¶88

14

¶89

to millers and same has been reimbursed by FCI for paddy milled during for central pool as per provisional cost sheet issued by Govt. of India vide letter no. 192(14)/2014-FC A/cs dated 16th October, 2014, the copy of which was also submitted with final claims to the Govt. of India.

¶90

The State of Punjab had made payment towards driage @ 1% of MSP. It is consistent stand of the State that petitioners are entitled to driage @1%, however, Central Government has wrongly calculated driage less than 1% of MSP. The State by impugned notices is attempting to recover difference between driage paid at provisional rate and final rate determined by Central Government. From the affidavit of State, it is evident that State is pursuing the matter with the Central Government and for the said purpose they have addressed various communications to the Central Government. As per State Government, the Central Government has wrongly determined driage and as per Mr. Sunish Bindlish, learned counsel for Union of India & Food Corporation of India, rates have been determined on the basis of data furnished. Be that as it may, the issue of determination of final rates was between State Government and Central Government. If there is any mis- communication or mis-understanding between the State Government and Central Government, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The State has unilaterally initiated recovery

¶91

15

¶92

proceedings. Neither notice nor opportunity of hearing was granted to the aggrieved parties. The Respondent-State was bound to follow procedure prescribed by law. The State has no authority to initiate recovery proceedings without associating affected parties.”

¶93

In the aforesaid case, the Court finds that the driage allowance, which would compensate for weight loss during storage and processing of paddy, was rightfully claimed from the State of Punjab at the rate of 1% of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for KMS 2014–15. This rate was certified by the Principal Secretary and Managing Directors of the State Procuring Agencies, and payments were made accordingly. However, the Central Government unilaterally determined a lower driage rate based on stock flow data without considering the audited financial records submitted by the State. As a result of this mismatch, the State initiated recovery proceedings against millers and other stakeholders to recover the difference between the amount paid and the amount reimbursed. The Court holds that such recovery actions, undertaken without notice or opportunity of hearing, are in violation of the principles of natural justice. It further observes that the issue of final driage rate determination lies between the Central and State Governments, and private parties cannot be held liable for discrepancies arising out of inter-governmental disputes. Consequently, the Court sets

¶94

16

¶95

aside the reduction of the driage allowance by the Central Government and quashes the recovery proceedings initiated by the State, declaring them unauthorized and procedurally invalid.

¶96

The Court upheld the payment of driage @ 1% of MSP as valid, and found the recovery efforts by the State illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of due process. The dispute over driage reimbursement is an inter-governmental matter and cannot be passed onto the petitioners.

¶97

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and submissions advanced by the parties, this Court directs the petitioners to submit an appropriate representation alongwith copy of this order before the Central and the State Government for redressal of their grievances within a period of ‘two weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and, in turn, the authorities concerned shall consider and decide the said representations while passing a reasoned order within a further period of ‘90 days’ in accordance with law.

¶98

Accordingly, above writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶99

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶100

J.

¶101

17

Toman Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toman Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Raipur Stone Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anukalp Gupta (Minor) Vs Union of India

Chetan Kumar Jaiswal Vs Kisanlaal

Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ferro Scrap Workers Union Vs Union of India