Disposed¶¶34

Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Saldih v. State of Chhattisgarh

Paddy procurement – non-lifting of procured paddy

Chhattisgarh HC16 Mar 2026WPC/1156/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, WPC No. 1156 of 2026, decided 17/03/2026 by Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J. Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Saldih v. State of Chhattisgarh & others. Paddy procurement; MARKFED; District Marketing Officer; tripartite agreement dated 27.11.2025; Clause 2.8 lifting deadline 31.03.2026; buffer limit exceeded; stock 28,710.40 quintals; writ petition held premature and disposed of without deciding merits; Article 226.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was disposed of as premature without being entertained on merits, and pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶¶34

Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Saldih Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:12720

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1156 of 2026

¶6

Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Saldih Through Its Procurement In-Charge, Shree Dhirendra Pradhan, S/o Prasanna Pradhan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village- Saldih, Tahsil- Pithora, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation Limited, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Collector Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Nodal Officer District Nodal Office, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Food), Pithora Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶14

6 - District Marketing Officer Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

{Cause title, as taken from CIS}

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Resp. No. 1,3, 4 & 5 : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General. For Resp. No. 2 & 6 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Adv. appears through Video Conferencing & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. appears in person

¶18

¶19

{Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

17/03/2026

¶22

1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-

¶23

10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondent’s authority to lift the paddy from procurement centers forthwith as per the number of bags.

¶24

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to comply the terms and condition of the policy and agreement which relates to lifting of paddy within prescribed period.

¶25

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondent’s authority to pay the all expenses made by the petitioner to keep the paddy in safe.

¶26

10.4 That the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the benefit of loss of paddy due to driage and change of climate.

¶27

10.5 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in similar cases.

¶28

10.6 That this Hon’ble Court to kindly pleased to pass any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. “

¶29

¶30

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the paddy procurement process was completed on 06.02.2026, however, the stock position of paddy as on 05.03.2026 is 28,710.40 quintals and due to non-lifting of procured paddy by respondent No .6 – District Marketing Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, the stock at the procurement center exceeded the prescribed buffer limit. Therefore, relief, as prayed for, may be granted to the petitioner.

¶31

3. Learned counsel for respondents 2 & 6 submits that a tripartite agreement was executed between Petitioner-Society, District Cooperative Central Bank and MARKFED on 27.11.2025. They also submit that as per Clause 2.8 of the said agreement, the last date for lifting procured paddy is 31.03.2026. Hence, at this stage, this writ petition is premature and not maintainable.

¶32

4. Counsel for the petitioner would not oppose the aforesaid clause of the agreement.

¶33

5. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the documents placed before the Court, this Court finds that the grievances raised in this writ petition are at an early stage, as last date for lifting procured paddy is 31.03.2026. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is premature at this stage, and hence this Court is not inclined to entertain the same on merits at this juncture.

¶34

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

7. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶37

Judge

¶38

AMITKUMAR Digitally signedby AMIT KUMARDUBEYDate: 2026.03.19 DUBEY 10:58:43 +0530

¶39