Rambharose Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU

¶3

2026:CGHC:27363

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3382 of 2026

¶7

Rambharose Jain S/o Shri Bhagirathi Aged About 56 Years At Present Incharge/ Manager Of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Baderajpur, Paddy Procurement Center Baderajpur And Paddy Procurement Center Kopra R N No. 350, Add Village Tevsa, Post Tevsa, Tehsil Baderajpur Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative, 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 District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶17

7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶18

8 - The District Food Officer Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶19

--- Respondents

¶20

WPC No. 3410 of 2026

¶21

1 - Bhupendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jaisingh Rai Verma Aged About 33 Years At Present Incharge/ Manager Of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Madoda, Paddy Procurement Center Madoda R.N. No. 1098, Add- Atripa Madoda, Tehsil Kheragadh, Dist. Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s)

¶22

Versus

¶23

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Oprative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶24

2 - The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Suppliers Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶25

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

¶26

4 - The Collector Dist. Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai (C.G.)

¶27

5 - The District Marketing Officer Dist. Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai (C.G.)

¶28

3

¶29

6 - The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶30

7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Dist. Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai (C.G.)

¶31

8 - The District Food Officer Dist. Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai (C.G.)

¶32

--- Respondents

¶33

WPC No. 3407 of 2026

¶34

1 - Vinay Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Raj Kumar Sinha Aged About 32 Years At Present Incharge Manager Of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Amdani Paddy Procurement Center Singarghat R.N. No. 116, Add. Village Amdani, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai C.G.

¶35

Petitioner(s)

¶36

Versus

¶37

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Co-Operative Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G.

¶38

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

¶39

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 C.G.

¶40

4 - The Collector District Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai C.G.

¶41

5 - The District Markeing Officer District Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan Gandai C.G.

¶42

4

¶43

6 - The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶44

7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society District Khairagadh, Chhuikhadan Gandai C.G.

¶45

8 - The District Food Officer District Khairagadh Chhuikhadan Gandai C.G.

¶46

--- Respondents

¶47

WPC No. 3405 of 2026

¶48

1 - Dhanesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Saval Singh Sahu Aged About 34 Years Present Incharge Manager Of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Junvani Paddy Procurement Center Junvani R.N. 1401, Add- Village- Navagao PostJunvani Tehsil Bodla Dist- Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶49

--- Petitioner(s)

¶50

Versus

¶51

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Co- Oprative Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶52

2 - The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Suppliers Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶53

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 (C.G.)

¶54

4 - The Collector Dist- Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶55

5 - The District Marketing Officer Kabirdham Dist- Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶56

5

¶57

6 - The Chief Executive Officer District- Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶58

7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Distt- Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶59

8 - The District Food Officer Dist- Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶60

--- Respondents

¶61

WPC No. 3397 of 2026

¶62

1 - Tulsidas Manikpuri S/o Shri Manharan Das Manikpuri Aged About 48 Years At Present Incharge Manager Of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bindora Paddy Procurement Center Rakse R.N. No. 1400, Add- Village Bindora, Post Silhati, Tehsil Salohara District Kabirdham C.G.

¶63

--- Petitioner(s)

¶64

Versus

¶65

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Co-Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G.

¶66

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

¶67

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

¶68

4 - The Collector District Kabirdham C.G.

¶69

5 - The District Marketing Officer District Kabirdham C.G.

¶70

6 - The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶71

6

¶72

7 - The Deputyh Registrar Cooperative Society District Kabirdham C.G.

¶73

8 - The District Food Officer District Kabirdham C.G.

¶74

--- Respondents

¶75

WPC No. 3396 of 2026

¶76

1 - Rambharose Jain S/o Shri Bhagirathi Aged About 56 Years At Present Incharge/ Manager Of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Korgaon Paddy Procurement Center Korgaon R.N. No. 55, Add- Village Tevsa, Post Tevsa Tehsil Baderajpur, Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶77

--- Petitioner(s)

¶78

Versus

¶79

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Oprative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶80

2 - The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Suppliers Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶81

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, (C.G.)

¶82

4 - The Collector Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶83

5 - The District Marketing Officer Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶84

6 - The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶85

7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Dstt- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶86

8 - The District Food Officer Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶87

--- Respondents

¶88

7

¶89

WPC No. 3395 of 2026

¶90

1 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bansi Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years At Present Incharge/ Manager Of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Kuruva, Paddy Procurement Center Kuruva R.N. No. 1244, Add- Village Kamanbod, Post Koylari, Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶91

--- Petitioner(s)

¶92

Versus

¶93

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Oprative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶94

2 - The Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Suppliers Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶95

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

¶96

4 - The Collector Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶97

5 - The District Marketing Officer Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶98

6 - The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶99

7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶100

8 - The District Food Officer Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶101

--- Respondents

¶102

8

¶103

WPC No. 3384 of 2026

¶104

1 - Anup Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Sagnu Ram Nishad Aged About 39 Years Present Incharge / Manager Of Seva Sahkri Samiti Maryadit Lihagaon, Paddy Procurement Center Lihagaon R.N. No. 54, Add- Village Vishrampur, Post Vishrampur, Tehsil Baderajpur District Kondagaon C.G.

¶105

--- Petitioner(s)

¶106

Versus

¶107

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Co-Operative, Mahandi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G.

¶108

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

¶109

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

¶110

4 - The Collector District Kondagaon C.G.

¶111

5 - The District Marketing Officer District Kondagaon C.G.

¶112

6 - Chief Executive Officer, Distirict Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶113

7 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society District Kondagaon C.G.

¶114

8 - The District Food Officer District Kondagaon C.G.

¶115

---Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)
For Petitioners : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, P.L.
For MARKFED/Respondent Nos. 3 & 5. : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Khyoti Adil, Advocate on behalf of Shashank Thakur,
Advocate.

¶116

9

¶117

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶118

Order on Board

¶119

03/07/2026

¶120

All these captioned writ petitions share a common background and involve the same issues, therefore, they were clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

¶121

For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (C) No. 3382 of 2026 is treated as the lead case for the purpose of disposing all the writ petitions. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :-

¶122

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.

¶123

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)

¶124

10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to provide excess amount which has been invest to protect the paddy after 31st March to till date and zero shortage incentive (Protsahan) Amount.

¶125

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

¶126

10.5 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to 7 to make an enquiry

¶127

10

¶128

and about the shortage is due to dry and find the liable person for punishment.

¶129

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

¶130

Succinctly stated, the facts of the case, as canvassed by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the Manager/In-charge of the respective Paddy Procurement Center(s) of the Cooperative Societies and works under the direct supervision, observation and instructions of Respondent No.7. The State Government issues a Paddy Procurement Policy at the beginning of every Financial/Purchasing year. For the current purchasing year i.e., Session 2025-2026, Respondent No.2 has issued the relevant Policy. On the basis of the aforesaid Policy/Guidelines for the Session 2025-26, a tri-party agreement is required to be executed between the petitioner, the District Marketing Officer, Kondagaon (CG) and the Chief Executive Officer, Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon (CG). Although such an agreement was duly executed prior to the current session, no tri-party agreement for procurement of paddy was ever executed or entered into for the present session, despite the petitioner’s efforts to obtain a copy. The office of the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Rajnandgaon (CG) issued a direction ordering all Societies to make up for any procurement shortages at their own cost. From the initial stage of the procurement process, the petitioner regularly informed the respondents through written communications that the transportation/lifting of paddy had not commenced in accordance with the guidelines, which would severely impact and disrupt the procurement process. Though several oral and written requests were

¶131

11

¶132

made by the petitioner urging the authorities to lift the paddy within the timelines prescribed under the State Policy, no action was taken by the concerned authorities. Due to this inaction, the petitioners served a legal notice upon the concerned authorities on 23.05.2026 and 08.06.2026 respectively. However, the respondents have shown no interest in complying with the guidelines/Policy of the State and did not reply to the legal notice. The petitioner- Rambharose Jain is the Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Badrajpur where he purchased a total of 67200 quintals of paddy. A shortage of 2303.67 quintals occurred due to natural dryness, which amounts to only 3.42% of the total purchased paddy at the Center. The petitioner- Anup Kumar Nishad is the Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Lihagaon where he purchased a total of 53458.40 quintals of paddy. A shortage of 1371.88 quintals occurred due to natural dryness, which amounts to only 2.56% of the total purchased paddy at the Center. The petitioner- Rakesh Kumar Sahu is the Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Kuruva where he purchased a total of 117818.40 quintals of paddy. A shortage of 1278.54 quintals occurred due to natural dryness, which amounts to only 1.08% of the total purchased paddy at the Center. The petitioner- Rambharose Jain is the Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Korgaon where he purchased a total of 55340 quintals of paddy. A shortage of 1252.32 quintals occurred due to natural dryness, which amounts to only 2.26% of the total purchased paddy at the Center. The petitioner- Tulsidas Manikpuri is the Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Rakse where he purchased a total of 58222 quintals of paddy. A shortage of 1416.67 quintals occurred due to natural dryness, which amounts to

¶133

12

¶134

only 2.43% of the total purchased paddy at the Center. The petitionerDhanesh Kumar Sahu is the Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Junvani where he purchased a total of 75007.20 quintals of paddy. A shortage of 2.29 quintals occurred due to natural dryness, which amounts to only 2.29% of the total purchased paddy at the Center. The petitioner- Vinay Kumar Sinha is the Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Singarghat where he purchased a total of 10966 quintals of paddy. A shortage of 2390 quintals occurred due to natural dryness, which amounts to only 2.36% of the total purchased paddy at the Center. The petitioner- Bhupendra Kumar Verma is the Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Madoda where he purchased a total of 97379.60 quintals of paddy. A shortage of 2119 quintals occurred due to natural dryness, which amounts to only 2.17% of the total purchased paddy at the Center. The Collector, directed the recovery of the alleged paddy shortage from the petitioner to achieve a “Zero Shortage” status. Further, directions have been issued to register an FIR against the petitioner and to recover the “dryness shortage” directly from the In-charge of the Paddy Procurement Center(s). The State Government extended protection to Rice Millers by permitting an allowance of 5% for “dryness shortage” (weight loss due to moisture evaporation), while completely denying any such dryness allowance to the Paddy Procurement Centers. Though the Policy provides timely lifting of paddy from the centers, but the Millers deliberately delay lifting to gain a double advantage on weight shortages. This entire resultant shortage is then unfairly penalized and imposed upon the Centre Incharge and Cooperative Samiti. The State Government and the Marketing Federation are well

¶135

13

¶136

aware that Millers do not lift paddy from Procurement Centers within the timeframe prescribed under the Policy. In this regard, the State Government had previously granted consent to the Marketing Federation to accord a 3% dryness shortage benefit to the Cooperative Societies in the year 2022. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the arbitrary directions issued by respondent authorities, whereby the said authority is compelling the petitioner to fill the shortage, failing which, he face a threat of an FIR and coercive financial recovery for natural dryness shortages. Hence, these Petitions.

¶137

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities, particularly respondents 4 to 7 disregards the guidelines and Policy framed by the State Government. The responsibility of the petitioner is confined to purchase and safe custody of the paddy stock, however, the alleged shortage in weight is entirely attributable to natural dryage and moisture evaporation caused by severe heat waves, which is completely beyond the control of human. He also submits that respondents 4 to 7 ignored the petitioner’s request to transport the paddy as early as possible and they deliberately did not consider this issue. The authorities in collusion with certain Rice Millers are unlawfully demanding 10% illegal demand to clear the zero shortage and transport rest of the paddy from the Center. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner pray to allow the petitions.

¶138

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-State as well as Respondent-MARKFED submit that the reliefs sought by the

¶139

14

¶140

petitioner cannot be granted because it is against the Paddy Procurement Policy for the Session 2025-2026. Under the said Policy, there is no provision for dryage benefit. Furthermore, as far as the transportation part is concerned, the Policy itself provides for a mechanism to remove any hindrance as MARKED states that if transportation facilities cannot be provided by MARKFED, the petitioner-Society is permitted to transport the paddy from the concerned Societies to the Center, as directed by MARKFED. They submit that the expenses incurred by Society would then be adjusted by MARKFED. As such, timely transportation would be the responsibility of the Society itself. Therefore, the concerned Society cannot hold the State or MARKFED liable for any delayed transportation of paddy. They lastly submit that since no benefit in respect of dryage of paddy can be granted to the Society under the Policy, the petitions as framed and filed by the petitioners are without merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶141

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petitions.

¶142

Admittedly, the reliefs sought by the petitioner stem from the natural dryage of paddy, which led to reduction in its total weight due to moisture evaporation. This shortage occurred due to non-lifting and omission to transport the paddy from the Center within the stipulated time. Though the petitioner made several efforts and repeatedly made communications with the respondents to expedite the lifting of the paddy but the concerned authorities chose not to take any steps. Under the Paddy Procurement Policy of the State Government for the

¶143

15

¶144

Kharif Marketing Session 2025-2026, there are specific provisions i.e. clause 15.9 and clause 16.3, which address the subject issue and are reproduced below :

¶145

15.9 धानउपार ्ज� नकन े ् दो ्र ं म ें स ं ग ्र ह ि �तधानक े ल ि �ए कोईस ू खतमातामान ्र ् यन�ी ं �ोगी।

¶146

16.3 धानक े पर ि #व�न� े त ु ह ि नधा � र ि #तपर ि #व�नकता � द ्व ा#ापर ि #व�ननह ि कय े रान ्ज े प# आवशयकतान ् सा# ु सवीक ् ृ तपर ि #व�नद# प# ह ि कसीभीपर ि #व�नकता � स े पर ि #व�नकाकाय � क#ायारासकता� ्ज ै ।माक � फडद े ्व ा#ा पर ि #व�नन�ी ं क#ाय े रान ्ज े कीस ्थि स2त ् ि तम ें सवीक ् ृ त पर ि #व�नद# प# सह ि मत ि तयो ं द ्व ा#ाधानकापर ि #व�न क#ायाराव ्ज े ।इस� े त ु सह ि मत ि तउस े धानभण ् डा#णव स ु #कामदअ2वाप ्ष ्र ासह ं ि गकव ् ययक े मदम ें प ्र दत ्त अह ि गम#ाश ्र ि = काउपयोगपर ि #व�नदयको े ं क े भगतान ु � े त ु क# सकगीत2ाऐस े े व ् ययकीप ्र त ि तप ू र ् त ह ि वपणन स ं घद ्व ा#ासह ि मत ि तकोकीराएगी।सह ्ज ि मत ि तयो ं दा#ाधान ्व पर ि #व�नक#ाय े रान ्ज े प# स ं ग�णक ्र न े ् दो ्र ं म ें धान भण ् डा#णक#न े � े त ु उत ि Aतवयवस ् 2ामाक ् � फडद े ्व ा#ाकी राव ्ज े ।

¶147

A perusal of the aforesaid clauses would show that the State Government has framed a Policy, according to which, no dryage is generally permitted. Clause 16.3 provides that in the event MARKFED fails to transport the paddy from the concerned Societies, the Societies themselves are directed to arrange transportation at the applicable rates with the expenses incurred to be subsequently adjusted by MARKFED. Thus, the main ground raised by the petitioner regarding natural dryage caused by delayed transportation cannot be adjudicated by this Court, as doing so would ignore the terms of the subject Policy, which allows no permissible dryage . The petitioner has entered into an Agreement with the respondents, wherein clause 5.6 of the said Agreement stipulates as under :

¶148

5.6- ह ि वपणनस ं घदा#ाप ्व दायकीगई#ाश ्र ि = स उपार ्ज� नकन े ् द (सह ि मत ि त ) द ्व ा#ाधानह ि वपणनसघ ं कोकमप ्र ाप ्त �ोन े प# =ष#ाश े ि = कीवस ू �ी

¶149

16

¶150

सह ि मत ि तकोप ्र दायकमी=नएव ं अन ् यअनसा ु ं ह ि गक मदो ं स े #ाश ि = कीकटौतीकीराव ्ज े गी।इसक े उप#ा ं तभीवस ू �ीयोगय#ाश ् ि = = े ष#�न े प# ज ि र�ाह ्ज ि वपणनअत ि धका#ीद ्व ा#ाछ .ग. #ाजय ् स�का#ी सोसायटी अत ि धह ि नयम 1960 के अतग ं � तवस ू �ीकाय � वा�ी� े त ु सकमन ्ष ् याया�य " म ें प ्र क#णदर ्ज� ह ि कयाराव ्ज े गा।

¶151

Likewise, Clause 13 of the Agreement provides the resolution of the disputes between the parties through arbitration, which reads as under:

¶152

13- आर्बिKट्रे=न :-

¶153

इसअन ु Kधकीह ं ि कसीभीकस ्थि ण ् डकास े स ं Kत ं ि धतह ि ववाद उत ् पन ्न �ोन े कीस ्थि स2त ् ि तम ें ह ि ववादक े ह ि नण � य�त े ु ज ि र� ्ज में ज ि र�ाक� ्ज क े ट# काह ् ि नण � यअस ्थि न ् तम�ोगारोउभयपक ्ज ो ्ष ं को मान ् य�ोगा।क� े कट# ् द ्व ा#ाह ि दय े गय े ह ि नण � यकीअपी� उभयपको ्ष ं द ्व ा#ाज ि र� ्ज े क े स ं भागीयआय ु क ्त कोकीरा ्ज सकगी। े

¶154

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also considering the State Government’s Paddy Procurement Policy for the year 2025-2026, this Court is of the view that an alternative and efficacious remedy exists by invoking arbitration Clause 13 of the Agreement. Since the Agreement itself contains a dispute resolution mechanism for resolving conflicts between the parties, the petitioners ought to have invoked arbitration clause in respect of shortage of paddy. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petitions for the reliefs sought by all the petitioners herein.

¶155

In view of the above, the petitioners are relegated to raise their disputes before the appropriate authority under the arbitration clause of the Agreement in accordance with law. In the event the petitioners approach the concerned authorities for arbitration concerning any

¶156

17

¶157

dispute covered under the said clause, the concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶158

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The concerned authorities vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under the arbitration clause are at liberty to initiate and conduct appropriate arbitration proceedings and pass a reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶159

With these observations/directions, all the Petitions stand disposed of.

¶160

Sd/- ( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge

¶161

U.K. Raju

Rambharose Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambharose Jain 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

Bhuneshwar Mahobiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shashi Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajnandgaon Chinmay Multispeciality Hospital Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikeshwari Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umarkot Wale Baba Seva Samiti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tulsi Sahu, Tulsi Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh