Nandlal Mahadore v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case brief
What is this about?
Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; single bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; order dated 30/06/2026 in eighteen clubbed writ petitions: WPC Nos. 3189, 3190, 3191, 3192, 3194, 3195, 3197, 3205, 3206, 3208, 3209, 3211, 3213, 3219, 3230, 3240, 3244, 3246 of 2026. Paddy procurement centre In-charges/Managers sought dryness (dryage) shortage benefit, zero-shortage incentive, and a halt to shortage recovery/FIR/police pressure. Court held: Policy clause 15.9 permits no dryage; clause 16.3 places transport duty on Societies if MARKFED fails (expenses adjustable); arbitration Clause 13 of the tri-party Agreement is an alternative efficacious remedy; writs not entertained; petitioners relegated to arbitration; merits left open. Keywords: MARKFED, paddy procurement, dryage/dryness shortage, zero shortage, Kharif 2025-26, arbitration clause, alternative remedy.
What did the court decide?
No substantive relief granted; all writ petitions disposed of with the petitioners relegated to invoking arbitration Clause 13 of the Agreement, the concerned authorities being directed to consider and decide such reference in accordance with law, and the Court expressing no opinion on merits.