Dismissed

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jun 2025WPC/321/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rival rice millers challenged a State penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on firms that allegedly furnished forged bank guarantees for paddy custom milling, seeking harsher blacklisting. The Court held the petitioners lacked locus standi and found no error in the penalty order, dismissing all petitions.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; batch of writ petitions dismissed, upholding the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed by the State.

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:26471

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1777 of 2023

¶6

1 - M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age -55 Years R/o Post Sivni, Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - M/s Daksh Food Insustries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Age -34 Years R/o Marwahi Road, Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age -30 Years, R/o Village Kudri , Pendra District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - M/s Sai Agro Through Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Sahu S/o Late Gorela Sahu Age-48 Years R/o Village Lerkeni Post Dhobhar, Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age -37 Years R/o Village Madna Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶11

6 - M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years R/o Village Madna Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶12

¶13

7 - M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal Aged -27 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road

¶14

8 - M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. Through Mr. Gaya Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age-59 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Petitioner(s)

¶16

versus

¶17

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Poerative Marketing Federation Limited Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex, Cbd, Sector -21, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

3 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶20

4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Managing Director Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

5 - Collector District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

6 - Shyam Industries Anjani, Gourela Through Proprietor Mr. Fakir Chand Agrawal S/o Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged -75 Years R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

¶25

WPC No. 261 of 2024

¶26

1 - M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta Aged 55 Years R/o Post Sivni, Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

2 - M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged 34 Years R/o Marwahi Road, Pendra

¶28

3 - M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age 30 Years R/o Village Kudri Pendra

¶29

4 - M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 37 Years R/o Village Madna, Pendra Road

¶30

5 - M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years R/o Village Madna, Pendra Road

¶31

6 - M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal Age 27 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road

¶32

7 - M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorage Pvt Ltd Through Mr. Gaya Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age 59 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road

¶33

--- Petitioner(s)

¶34

Versus

¶35

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretray, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶36

¶37

2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, Cbd, Sector, -21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶38

3 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶39

4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporatoin Limited, Through Managing Director Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶40

5 - Collector, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶41

6 - Shyam Industries Anjani, Gourela Through Proprietor Mr. Fakir Chand Agrawal S/o Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged -7 Year R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela Tehsil Pendra Road, District : GaurelaPendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶42

Respondent(s)

¶43

WPC No. 5168 of 2023

¶44

1 - M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta, S/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age 55 Years, R/o Post Sivni, Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶45

2 - M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar Goyal, S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal, Age 34 Years, R/o Marwahi Road, Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶46

3 - M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age 30 Years, R/o Village Kudri, Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶47

4 - M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal, S/o Late Ashok Agrawal, Age 37 Years, R/o Village Madna, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶48

¶49

5 - M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta Agrawal, W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years, R/o Village Madna, Pendra Road, District Gourela, Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶50

6 - M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal, Age 27 Years, R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶51

7 - M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorage Pvt. Ltd. Through Mr. Gaya Prasad Agrawal, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Age 59 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶52

--- Petitioner(s)

¶53

Versus

¶54

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶55

2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex, Cbd, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶56

3 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶57

4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Managing Director Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶58

5 - Collector District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶59

6 - Shyam Food Products Through Proprietor Mr. Gopal Krishna Agrawal, S/o Fakir Chand Agrawal, Aged 47 Years R/o Samta Nagar,

¶60

¶61

Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶62

--- Respondent(s)

¶63

WPC No. 321 of 2024

¶64

1 - M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta Aged About - 55 Years, R/o Post - Sivni, Marwahi, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶65

2 - M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged - 34 Years, R/o Marwahi Road, Pendra, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶66

3 - M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age - 30 Years, R/o Village - Kudri, Pendra, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶67

4 - M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gangan Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Aged - 37 Years, R/o Village - Madna, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶68

5 - M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age - 52 Years, R/o Village - Madna, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶69

6 - M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal, Age - 27 Years, R/o Village - Anjani, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶70

7 - M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorages Pvt Ltd. Through Mr. Gaya Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age -59 Years, R/o Village - Anjani, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶71

--- Petitioner(s)

¶72

Versus

¶73

¶74

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Portection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶75

2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower -C, Commercial Complex, Cbd, Sector -21, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶76

3 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶77

4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Through Managing Director Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶78

5 - Collector, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶79

6 - Yash Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Gopal Krishna Agrawal S/o Fakir Chand Agrawal Aged - 47 Years, R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil - Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶80

--- Respondent(s)

¶81

WPC No. 2186 of 2023

¶82

1 - Shyam Industries Anjani, Gaurela A Proprietorship Firm, Having Its Registered Office At Rani Durgawati Industrial Area Anjani, Gourela, Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Shri Fakir Chand Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 75 Years , R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tahsil Pendra Road, Police Station Gourela, District -Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh.

¶83

Petitioner(s)

¶84

Versus

¶85

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya

¶86

¶87

Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶88

2 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Through Its General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶89

3 - General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor-21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶90

4 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶91

5 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited District - Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶92

6 - Collector, Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, District Gourela-PendraMarwahi Chhattisgarh.

¶93

7 - Managing Director, State Civil Supplies Corporation Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶94

8 - State Bank Of India Branch Pendra Road, Through Its Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Pendra Road, District - Gourela-PendraMarwahi Chhattisgarh

¶95

--- Respondent(s)

¶96

WPC No. 2100 of 2023

¶97

1 - Yash Modern Food Product, Gourela A Proprietorship Firm, Having Its Registered Office At Rani Durgawati Industrial Area Anjani, Gourela, Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Shri Ashish Agrawal, S/o Shri Fakir Chand Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, Police Station Gourela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶98

--- Petitioner(s)

¶99

¶100

Versus

¶101

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶102

2 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Through Its General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶103

3 - General Manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, C B D Sector-21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶104

4 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶105

5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶106

6 - Collector Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi, District : Gaurela-PendraMarwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶107

7 - Managing Director State Civil Supplies Corporation Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶108

8 - State Bank Of India Branch Pendra Road, Through Its Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-PendraMarwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶109

--- Respondent(s)

¶110

¶111

WPC No. 2189 of 2023

¶112

1 - Yash Rice Mill A Proprietorship Firm, Having Its Registered Office At Rani Durgawati Industrial Area Anjani, Gourela, Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Shri Gopal Krishna Agrawal, S/o Shri Fakir Chand Agrawal, Aged About47 Years, R/o Pendra Road, Police Station Gourela, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶113

--- Petitioner(s)

¶114

Versus

¶115

¶116

2 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Fedration Limited Through Its General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Fedration Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶117

3 - General Manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, C B D, Sector 21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶118

4 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶119

5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶120

6 - Collector Gourela Pendra Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶121

¶122

7 - Managing Director State Civil Supplies Corporation Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶123

8 - State Bank Of India Branch Pendra Road, Through Its Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶124

--- Respondent(s)

¶125

WPC No. 2178 of 2023

¶126

1 - Shyam Food Products, Gourela A Proprietorship Firm, Having Its Registered Office At Rani Durgawati Industrial Area Anjani, Gourela, Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Shri Gopal Krishna Agrawal, S/o Shri Fakir Chand Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, Police Station Gourela, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)

¶127

--- Petitioner(s)

¶128

Versus

¶129

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶130

¶131

3 - General manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation limited, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, CBD sector-21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶132

4 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶133

¶134

5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)

¶135

6 - Collector Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, District Gourela-PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶136

7 - Managing Director State Civil Supplies Corporation Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶137

8 - State Bank Of India Branch Pendra Road, Through Its BranchManager, State Bank Of India, Pendra Road, District GourelaPendra-Marwahi (C.G.)

¶138

--- Respondent(s)

¶139

WPC No. 1792 of 2023

¶140

1 - M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age-55 Years R/o Post - Sivni, Marwahi, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶141

2 - M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Age-34 Years R/o Marwahi Road Pendra, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶142

3 - M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age -30 Years, R/ovillage Kudri, Pendra, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶143

4 - M/s Sai Agro Through Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Sahu S/o Late Gorelal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Lerkeni, Post Dhobhar Marwahi , District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶144

5 - M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age -37 Years, R/o Village- Madna, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶145

¶146

6 - M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years R/o Village - Madna, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶147

7 - M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal Age 27 Years. R/o Village - Anjani, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶148

8 - M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorage Pvt. Ltd., Through Mr. Gaya Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age 59 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶149

--- Petitioner(s)

¶150

Versus

¶151

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶152

2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex, Cbd, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶153

3 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶154

4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Through Managing Director, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶155

5 - Collector District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶156

6 - Yash Modern Food Products Gourela, Through Proprietor Mr. Ashish Agrawal S/o Fakir Chand Agrawal Aged About 40 Years, R/o

¶157

¶158

Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tahsil-Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶159

--- Respondent(s)

¶160

WPC No. 1778 of 2023

¶161

1 - M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta, S/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age 55 Years R/o Post Sivni, Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶162

2 - M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar Goyal, S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal, Age 34 Years R/o Marwahi Road, Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶163

3 - M/s Laxmi Agro Induatries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age 30 Years R/o Village Kudri, Pendra District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶164

4 - M/s S A I A G R O Through Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Sahu S/o Late Gorelal Sahu Age 48 Years, R/o Village Larkeni, Post Dhobhar, Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶165

5 - M/s Maa Naramada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 37 Years, R/o Village Madna, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶166

6 - M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years, R/o Village Madna, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶167

7 - M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyansh Agrawal, Age 27 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶168

8 - M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Goldstorae Pvt. Ltd. Through Mr. Gaya Prasad Agrawal, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age 59 Years R/o

¶169

¶170

Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶171

--- Petitioner(s)

¶172

Versus

¶173

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶174

2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower, C, Commericial Complex, C B D, Sector 2, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶175

3 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Oprative Marketing Federation Limited, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶176

4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Managing Director, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶177

5 - Collector District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶178

6 - Shyam Food Products Through Proprietor Mr. Gopal Krishna Agrawal W/o Fakir Chand Agrawal, Aged 47, R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶179

--- Respondent(s)

¶180

WPC No. 1885 of 2023

¶181

1 - M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age - 55 Years R/o Post - Sivni, Marwahi, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶182

¶183

2 - M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Age - 34 Years R/o Marwahi Road, Pendra District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶184

3 - M/s Laxmi Agro Insustries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age - 30 Years R/o Village - Kudri, Pendra, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶185

4 - M/s Sai Agro Through Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Sahu S/o Late Gorelal Sahu Age - 48 Years R/o Village - Lerkeni, Post - Dhobhar, Marwahi, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶186

5 - M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age - 37 Years R/o Village - Madna, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶187

6 - M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age - 52 Years R/o Village - Madna, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶188

7 - M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal Age - 27 Years R/o Village - Anjani, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶189

8 - M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorage Pvt Ltd Through Mr. Gaya Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age - 59 Years R/o Village - Anjani, Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶190

--- Petitioner(s)

¶191

Versus

¶192

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶193

¶194

2 - Chhattisgarh State Co - Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower - C Commercial Complex C B D, Sector - 21, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶195

3 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co- Operative Marketing Federation Limited, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶196

4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Managing Director Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶197

5 - Collector District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶198

6 - Yash Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Gopal Krishna Agrawal S/o Fakir Chand Agrawal Aged - 47 Years R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil - Pendra Road, District - Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶199

-- Respondent(s)

¶200

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Siddarth Shukla and Ms. Samriddhi Shukla, Advocates in WPC No. 1777/2023,1778/2023,1792/2023,1885/2023 5168/2023,261/2024 and 321/2024 and Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate in WPC No. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023
For Respondent/State For Respondent No.2 & 3	: : : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. AG Shri Vikram Sharma, Advocate Shri Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.6 For Respondent No. 8	: Shri Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate on behalf of Shri P.R.Patankar, Advocate and Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate

¶201

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶202

Order on Board

¶203

20/06/2025

¶204

The batch of petitions ie. WPC No. 1777/2023,

¶205

¶206

1778/2023,1792/2023,1885/2023, 5168/2023,261/2024 and 321/2024 have ben filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27^th March 2023 whereby the respondent No.1 has exercised the powers of the Court under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in an appeal without jurisdiction with ulterior motive to favour the respondent No.6 by imposing penalty of Rs. 5 Lacs. The petitioner had deposited eight forged Bank guarantees of Rs. 7.50 crores out of Rs. 13.50 crores for the year 2021-22 and 2022-23, five forged Bank guarantees of Rs. 5 crores with respondent No.3 in respect of procurement of paddy for the Kharif Marketing Season of 2021-22 and 2022-23. T he petitioners thus, have filed these batch of petitions seeking the following reliefs:

¶207

“i. to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 27^th March 2023 issued by respondent No.1 during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶208

ii) to stay the payment of respondent No.6 in regard to Custom Rice Milling for Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 and Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 till the time action is not taken against respondent No.6 in accordance with law.

¶209

iii) pass any other further order(s) a this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶210

The batch of petitions ie. WPC No. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the State Government whereby, in view of Clause 9 of the Chhattisgarh Custom Milling Order, 2016, a fine of Rs, 5 Lacs has been imposed and it has

¶211

¶212

been held that the petitioners have committed certain irregularities. It is alleged that on 29.12.2022, order of blacklisting was passed and the petitioner has challenged the said order by filing writ petition before this Court (WPC No. 176/2023) and vide order dated 12.01.2023, the petitions were allowed and the order of blacklisting was set aside. The petitioners by way of this petition are seeking for the following reliefs:

¶213

10.1. To set aside and quash the order dated 27^th March 2023 issued by the respondent No.1 being contrary to Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order 2016 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 10.2 To direct the respondent NO.1 to act in accordance with law against the respondent NO.6 for the illegal action within time bound manner. 10.3. Pass any other relief/order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, along with cost of the proceedings.”

¶214

Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners in WPC No. 1777/2023, 1778/2023, 1792/2023, 1885/2023, 5168/2023, 261/2024 and 321/2024 and respondent No.6 are rice millers of District Gourela Pendra-Marwahi and procure paddy from the respondents No. 2 & 3 for custom milling and deposit the rice with respondent No.4. The entire process of rice custom milling is governed by the Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order 2016 and agreements were executed between the respondent No.3 and respective parties for completion of the procedure. Before procurement of paddy from respondent No.3, it is mandatory for the party to deposit the Bank Guarantees and for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 and 2022-23 the Custom Milling

¶215

¶216

Policy (Annexure P/2) for procurement of Rice under support Price wherein Clause 6.13/6.14 stipulates that Rile millers had to deposit security/cash guarantee equivalent to the price of paddy prior to delivery of paddy to rice millers. The petitioners and respondent No.6 after getting registered with respondent No.2 and permission from respondents No. 3 & 5 executed agreement with the rice millers after deposit of Bank guarantee. However, the petitioners came to know that the respondent No.6 had been depositing forged and fabricated bank guarantees issued in the name of State Bank of India with respondent No.3 for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 and 2022-23 for procurement of paddy for custom milling which is a violation of Clause 6.13 and 6.14. The petitioners had made several complaints with respondent No.1,5, Superintendent of Police, Chief Secretary for taking action against respondent No.6 for cheating the State exchequer.

¶217

Respondent No.5 after constituting Inquiry Committee comprising of Collector,Food Inspector and others had undertaken the investigation and filed report dated 28^th December 2022 wherein it has been concluded that the respondent No.6 had deposited forged bank guarantee in the year 2021-22 and 2022-23 for procurement of Rice Custom Milling which falls under Financial Misappropriation. This report has been forwarded to the respondent No.1 for imposition of punishment to respondent No.6 and acting over the same, respondent No.6 was blacklisted for the rest of Kharif Marketing Season 2022-23 and it was further directed not to issue DO in favour of respondent No.6 and for not taking any further custom milling of rice from it and FIR No. 09/2023 was registered against the respondent No.6 at police station Gaurela for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 IPC.

¶218

¶219

Being aggrieved by this order dated 29^th December 2022, the respondent No.6 preferred WPC No. 147/2023 before this Court and vide order dated 12^th January 2023, this Court had set aside the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the respondent NO.1in lieu of violation of Principal of Natural Justice and further liberty was granted to the respondent No.1 to undertake appropriate steps in accordance with law. Thereafter the petitioners again filed letter dated 23.01.2023 with the respondent No.1 to re-initiate the legal action the respondent No.6 for depositing forged and fabricated bank guarantees. The respondent No.1 acting contrary to Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016 had conducted the proceedings against respondent No.6 finding guilty of financial misappropriation and causing financial loss of State exchequer and penalty of Rs. 5 lacs was imposed by exercising Section 7 read with Section of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 9 of the Chhatisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016 in an arbitrary manner without jurisdiction to favour the respondent No.6.

¶220

Facts of the case in the respective petitions ie. WPC No. 2100/2023, 2178/2023, 2186/2023 and 2189/2023 are that on 7.12.2021 the petitioners entered into agreement with the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Federation for Custom Milling for Lot No. 5335 to 5535 for a period of one year ie. 2021-22 and the said agreement was executed for 64,000 quintals of Arwa rice. One more agreement was executed for Lot No. 5818 to 6018 and the petitioner had furnished bank guarantee from State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 8.50 crores for year 2021-22. The cross verification of bank guarantee was carried out by the District Marketing officer, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative

¶221

¶222

Federation and approved by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Pendra Road. In addition to that, several post dates cheques were submitted by the petitioners to the department and NOC was issued. Similar agreement was executed for the year 2022-23 for Lot No. 702882 and 1596 to 1686 and for which the petitioners had furnished bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 5 cores vide agreements dated 09.11.2022. The letter was sent to the Branch Manager, SBI Pendra Road for verification by the District Marketing Officer and lifted 51,460 quintals out of 64000 quintals of paddy as per the agreement however the petitioners were restricted to lift any paddy as per the impugned order on the complaint made by one Hariom that the petitioners firm and other rice millers have furnished the bank guarantees of total Rs. 44 crores for the Kharif Marketing Year 2021-22 and out of the said amount Rs. 20 crores of bank guarantees were forged. Notice was served to the petitioner on 23.12.2022 for recording of the statement and thereafter on 30.12.2022 the representation was made by the proprietor of the petitioner firm to the Additional Collector seeking documents. Thereafter order of blacklisting was issued against the petitioner firm stating that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner firm of Rs. 5 crores for the Kharif Marketing Season 2022-23 has been found to be forged. After passing the order on 12.01.2023 by this Court in WPC No. 176/2023, show cause notice was issued on 02.02.2023 and the petitioners were directed to appear before the State authorities on 10.02.2023 and in reply the petitioners had submitted the application for cross-examination of the witnesses, examination of the witnesses in support thereof and for furnishing and supplying the copies of those bank guarantees which are alleged to be

¶223

¶224

forged.

¶225

On 03.03.2023, the applications filed by the petitioners were allowed by the authorities and on 13.03.2023, the State Government issued order directing Lokesh Kumar Dewangan, Bhupendra Singh Gautam and Hariom Sharan Kashyap to appear before the State authorities on 20.03.2023 however they could not be examined on account of Vidhan Sabha Session and thereafter impugned order dated 27.03.2023 has been passed by the State government and order of black listing has been converted to imposing of fine of Rs. 5 lacs even after the order of this Court to afford opportunity of hearing to adduce evidence.

¶226

Contention of Shri Bhaduri, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 27^th March 2023 issued by the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and void ab initio being passed in contravention of Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He submits that the respondent NO.1 is not vested with the power of an Appellate Authority under Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016. It is settled law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden. Reference has been laid upon Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India reported in (2019) 5 SCC 480. The impugned order is completely silent on the point under which provision of law it has been passed. Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 does not vest power upon the respondent No.1 to impose penalty on respondent No.6. He submits that the respondent

¶227

¶228

No.5 vide its letter dated 28^th December 2022 had forwarded the inquiry report to respondent No.1 wherein it has been observed in para 6 and7 of the report that the respondent No.6 and three sister firms had deposed forged and fabricated bank guarantees issued from State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 21.50 crores in 2021-22 and Rs. 20 crores 2022-23 for procurement of paddy which tantamount to financial misappropriation and it is in violation of custom milling policy. He submits that the respondent No.1 could not have lost sight of the fact that FIR No. 09/2023 has been registered against the petitioner for submission of forged and fabricated Bank Guarantees for procurement of paddy and custom milling of rice wherein Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ought to have been added against the respondent No.6. He submits that the respondent No.1 cannot dilute the illegal activities and malpractice of the respondent No.6 for favoring him under the pretext that respondent No.6 had deposited the rice for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 and no financial loss has been caused to the State exchequer. He further submits that the respondent No.1 had passed the impugned order to favour the respondent No.6 and had acted in oblivious manner without taking into consideration that once the respondent No.6 had submitted forged and fabricated bank guarantees for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22, had again submitted false and fabricated bank guarantees for the Kharif Marketing Season 2022-23 making mockery of law. It is submitted that under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the power to impose penalty is upon the Court and not on the respondent No.1. Section 10A of the Act provides that every offence punishable under the Act shall be cognizable. The power to impose penalty under the Act is

¶229

¶230

vested with the Court and it is not for the respondent No.1 to decide as to whether he has committed the offence under the Act warranting penal action under Section 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that multiple complaints have been filed by them against the respondent No.6 and sister firms and they have been unpunished which is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶231

Shri Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPC No. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 is that the order impugned is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. From the perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners it is clear that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners/firm before passing earlier order of black listing. A prior show cause notice granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all administrative decision making and particularly so in decision pertaining to imposition of fine. He submits that no document has been provided prior to recording of the statement or no copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner firm before passing the order impugned. He submits that the bank guarantee furnished for Kharif Marketing year 2021-22 and 2022-23 were cross verified by the District Marketing Officer from the concerned Bank and when the Bank has approved the same, the petitioners were permitted to lift their paddy. Even otherwise the post dated cheques for the same amount of bank guarantees were also furnished. He submits that the petitioners/firms did not cause any loss to the respondents and for the year 2020-21 the rice has been deposited and the NOC has been issued and bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners were released. For Kharif Marketing Year 2022-23 the petitioners firms had furnished the bank guarantee of R. 5

¶232

¶233

crores issued by the State Bank of India and later on the closed the account from the SBI looking to the future business prospects and expansion of business. He submits that it is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but the testimony by which the accusation is supported, he must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charges and to to put such relevant questions by way of cross examination as he desires and give chance to rebut the evidence laid against him. He submits that the impugned order is based on the enquiry report furnished by the enquiry committee but the same has not been supplied along with the sow cause notice. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ayaaubhkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 herein it has been held that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceedings unless he satisfies the authority/court that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. He has further relief upon the order of this court in WPC No. 6450/2024 dated 02.01.2025 wherein it has been held a under:

¶234

“6. It is the trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject-matter and the word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority.

¶235

It is also the settled law that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any

¶236

¶237

imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. (See: Vinoy Kumar v State of U.P.and Others),(2001) 4 SCC 734.”

¶238

Shri Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in WPC Nos. 1777/2023, 1778/2023, 1792/2023, 1885/2023, 5168/2023, 261/2024 and 321/2024 only grievance is that the State government ought to have affirmed the earlier order of blacklisting. It is admitted position that the punishment has been imposed by the State government, the quantum of punishment or what punishment should have been imposed is a matter of discretion, which has been rightly exercised by it.

¶239

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 5/State submits that the present petition have been filed challenging the order of the State Government and the petitioners are not the aggrieved persons and only on the ground of locus of the petitioners, the order has been challenged. He submits that the present petitions filed by the petitioners is bereft of merits and substance and therefore deserve to be dismissed. It is submitted that while passing the order impugned dated 27.03.2023, the respondent No.1/State government has only exercised its respective powers as quasi judicial authority as per the provisions and in compliance of the directions of this Court. He submits that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with law after affording due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore does not warrant any interference. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. Collector, (2012) 4 SCC 407 and Sanker Verma Vs. State of UP,

¶240

¶241

reported in 2019 SCC Online All 5630.

¶242

So far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners in WPC No. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 are concerned, it is submitted by the learned State counsel is that after conducting a preliminary enquiry in respect of the allegations levelled against the petitioners had passed the order dated 29.12.2022 whereby apart from blacklisting the petitioners,the authorities had imposed further restrictions and therefore the petitioners preferred the petition before this Court a WPC No. 147/2023 and the grievance of the petitioner that before inflicting the order of blacklisting, the respondents had never issued any show cause notice nor opportunity of defence was given to the petitioners. However, after hearing the petition, this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 was allowed holding that the order dated 29.12.2022 is apparently in contravention to the settled legal position. The order has been issued without compliance of the basic principles of natural justice and the petitioners were unheard, before inflicting the order of blacklisting. Therefore the order is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside/quashed. Learned State counsel submits that the orders has been passed by the statutory authority while exercising the adjudicatory power as well as direction of this court and the authorities concerned have rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them.

¶243

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the main grievance of the petitioners is against the inaction of the respondent No.1/State and that the State is a separate entity and that he is a formal party.

¶244

¶245

Learned counsel for respondent No.8 submits that the role of SBI is limited. The petitioners in collusion with the then Branch Manager of SBI, Pendra Road, prepared fake/forged bank guarantees and extended/confirmed in favour of CG State Cooperative Marketing Federation as such FIR was lodged and PS Gaurela against the proprietor of the petitioner firm and Branch Manager of SBI, Pendra Road along with other firms. He submits that after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the Branch Manager and proprietors of petitioners firms namely Fakirchand Agrawal, Gopal Agrawal and Ashish Agrawal under Sections 420,467,468,47 and 34 IPC and the case is fixed for framing of charges on 28.07.2025.

¶246

Heard learned counsels for the parties and their rival submissions and perused the documents annexed with the petitions.

¶247

The petitioners, though not having a clear legal standing ( locus standi ) based on their nomenclature, are contesting the order impugned dated 27.03.2023.The order relates to bank guarantees that are alleged to be forged and fabricated. The petitioners specifically argued that the allegations are unfounded and the process was flawed. The court will need to carefully interpret the meaning and scope of Section 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. In the context of the Essential Commodities Act, particularly Section 7(3),it reads as under:’

¶248

“Under Section 7 of the Act, the power to impose penalty is upon the Court and not on the District Collector. Section 10 A of the Act provides that every offence punishable under the Act shall be cognizable. Section 11 provides

¶249

¶250

that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association. Thus, the power to impose penalty under the Act is vested with the Court and it is not for the District Collector to decide whether a person has committed the offence under the Act warranting penal action under Section 7. No sanction of the District Collector is necessary for initiating prosecution under Section 7 of the Act.”

¶251

The operative part of the impugned order dated 27.03.2023

¶252

passed by the respondent No.1/State is reproduced as under:

¶253

“ mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fyEukuqlkj fu.kZ; tkjh fd;k tkrk gS&

¶254

;|fi vihykFkhZ jkbZl fey laLFkkvksa |kjk [kjhQ foi.ku o"kZ 2021&2022 esa mBk;s x;s 'kklu dk leLr vkuqikfrd pkoy tek dj fn;k gS] ftlls 'kklu dks dksbZ vkfFkZd {kfr dkfjr ugha gqbZ gS ijarq buds }kjk [kjhQ foi.ku o"kZ 2021&22 esa ,oa [kjhQ foi.ku o"kZ 2022&23 esa dwV jfpr cSad xkjaVh tek dj /kku mBko fd;k x;k gS tks fd ,d vfu;ferrk gS ,oa ftlds ifj.kker% jkT; 'kklu dks dLVe fefyax dk pkoy ifjnku uk fd, tkus ij vfkFkZd {kfr dh vo’;eHkkoh FkhA vr,o vfoHkkxh; vkns’k i= dz- 4&21@2022@29&1 fnukad 29-12-2022 }kjk vihykFkhZ jkbZl fey laLFkkvksa dks [kjhQ foi.ku o"kZ 2022&23 esa dkyh lwph esa ntZ fd;s tkus laca/kh vkns’k dks f’kfFky djrs gq, vko’;d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk ¼7½ lgifBr /kkjk ¼3½ rFkk N-zx- dLVe fefyax vkns’k 2016 dh dafMdk 9 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vkosnd jkbZl fey ij #- 5 yk[k ¼ikap yk[k #i;s½ vFkZn.M dh 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh tkrh gSA lkFk gh [kjhQ foi.ku o"kZ 2022&23 esa vkosnd jkbl fey ls DO ds vuqlkj fd, x, /kku mBko ds fo#) ifj.kkeh pkoy dks N-x- jkT; ukxfjd vkiwfrZ fuxe@Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe esa tek djk;s tkus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA”

¶255

¶256

On bare perusal of the order of the respondent No.1 Annexure P/14, it appears that proper opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners in WPC Nos. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 are concerned and after enquiring the matter and taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners and their statements, the order has been passed. It is not a trial alike criminal court and only an enquiry was made by the respondent authorities therefore in the considered opinion of this Court the order has been passed after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶257

As far as the powers under Clause/Order 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is concerned, the punishment under this Section reads as under:

¶258

“9. Penalty: If a person contravenes any provision of this Order or any instruction issued under this Order or any agreement made under this Order, he shall be liable for punishment under Section 7 of the Act and for penalty as mentioned in agreement and rice mill may be black-listed.”

¶259

Bare perusal of the Clause 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides that if a person contravenes any provision of this order or any instruction issued under this Order or any agreement made under this order, the following punishment is prescribed:

¶260

ie. i) he shall be liable for punishment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. ii) and for penalty as mentioned in agreement and iii) rice mill may be blacklisted.”

¶261

Therefore the word used by the legislature may be blacklisted therefore it is discretionary power given under this Act. The respondent

¶262

¶263

authority had passed the order (Ex.P-14) on the following grounds:

¶264

Firstly, false and fabricated bank guarantees were furnished by the petitioners, secondly, all the paddy has been supplied by the petitioners and thirdly, there was no financial loss to the State exchequer.

¶265

On the basis of above findings, the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed. However the State authority has wrongly mentioned the nomenclature ie. under Section 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act because under this Section only the Court is empowered punish the accused.

¶266

It is also pertinent to mention here that State has also registered the case under Section 420/34 IPC against the petitioners in WPC Nos. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 and during the course of arguments, learned counsels for the respective parties have admitted that the final report has been forwarded to the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 420/34 and 467 IPC against the petitioners therefore it cannot be said that the State has favoured the petitioners (in the above petitions) and it is a case between the petitioner and respondent No.1 (Secretary, Department of Food, Civil supplies and Consumer Protection) and agreement has been executed between the parties therefore the petitioners in WPC Nos. 1777/2023, 1778/2023, 1792/2023, 1885/2023, 5168/2023, 261/2024 and 321/2024 are not the aggrieved and thus, they have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions challenge in the order impugned dated 27.03.2023 passed by the State government. The State has already taken action against the petitioners (in WPC Nos. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023) by filing final report forwarding under Sections 420/34 and

¶267

¶268

467 IPC before the competent court and had imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner. This Court cannot interfere with the penalty given by the concerned authority on the ground that it is erroneous if the order impugned is otherwise proper. It is not open to the writ court to re-appreciate reasonableness in the order impugned. This Court is not seated in the appeal of the authority.

¶269

So far as the petitioners in WPC Nos. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 are concerned, they had been afforded proper opportunity of hearing and contention of Shri Paranjape is not acceptable. After giving due opportunity of hearing and following the norms of natural justice, the order impugned dated 27.03.2023 has been passed. Hence, in the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the order impugned passed by the State government and the above batch of petitions being devoid of substance are hereby dismissed.

¶270

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶271

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: 2025.07.04 11:08:16 +0530

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishi Kumar Maravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Singh Bhupal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harsh Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikahat Parveen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Vishwakarma Vs Commissioner