Ramgulal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2026:CGHC:26222

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3147 of 2026

¶7

1 - Ramgulal Yadav S/o Shri Debi Singh Yadav Aged About 54 Years At Present Incharge/ Manager Of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Gamhari, Paddy Procurement Center Gamhari R.N. No. 53, Address Village Banskot, Post Baskot, Tehsil Baderajpur Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of CoOperative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Suppliers Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Office At 6th Floor Tower-C Commercial Complex C B D Sector 21 Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Collector Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The District Marketing Officer Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2

¶16

6 - The Chief Executive Officer Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶17

7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶18

8 - The District Food Officer Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondents No. 3 & 5	: Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6	: Ms. Khyati Adil, Advocate on behalf of
	Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate.

¶21

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

29/06/2026

¶24

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶25

“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.

¶26

10.2. 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/5).

¶27

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to to direct the respondent No.3 to provide excess amount which has been invest to protect the paddy after 31st

¶28

3

¶29

March to till date and zero shortage incentive (Protsahan) Amount.

¶30

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 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.

¶31

10.5 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.

¶32

10.6. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”

¶33

It has been specifically mentioned that under the paddy procurement policy pertaining to the year 2025-26, no dry quantity/dryage in respect of paddy center would be allowed and as such, the petitioner was directed to give the quantity of paddy which has not been supplied.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit he has already replied to the notice issued to them. However, the dispute has not been decided by the authorities concerned till date, and as such, the authorities may be directed to consider the said replies of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order on merits of the case and till then, the said authority may be directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner society.

¶35

On the other hand, learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents oppose the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioners.

¶36

4

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection.

¶38

Considering the limited prayer made in these petitions by the petitioners society and further considering the fact that the replies have already been filed by the petitioners against the notice issued to them, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities are under an obligation to decide the dispute strictly in accordance with the law. However, till the decision of the said dispute, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.

¶39

The authorities concerned would be at liberty to pass an appropriate orders on the merits of the case after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The authorities concerned are directed to decide the said dispute within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case.

¶41

With the aforesaid observation/direction, this petition is disposed of .

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶44

Raghu Jat

Ramgulal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramgulal Yadav 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Singh Thakur Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

A.S. Associates Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hori Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priya Mishra Vs Central Information Commission

Kanhaiya Lal Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh