Parmesh Kumar Mahaveer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010269242026

2026:CGHC:29884

NAFR

Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 3678 of 2026

¶8

1 - Parmesh Kumar Mahaveer S/o Shankar Lal Mahaveer, aged about 33 years, Occupation Manager of Paddy Procurement Center Ashulkhar, Lams Ashulkhar R/o Sahawara, Tahsil Charama, District (North Bastar) Kanker (C.G.).

¶9

2 - Bhoj Kumar Jain S/o Late Mataprasad Jain, aged about 34 years, Occupation Bardana Prabhari Manager of Paddy Procurement Center Ashulkhar, Lams Ashulkhar R/o Village Farsakot, P.O. Farsakot, Tahsil Bhanupatappur, District (North Bastar) Kanker (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.).

¶13

2 - Collector (Co-Operative Branch) Uttar-Bastar- Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.).

¶14

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

¶15

4 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies Uttar Bastar Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.).

¶16

2

¶17

5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.).

¶18

6 - Branch Manager District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadit Jagdalpur Branch Bhanupratappur (C.G.).

¶19

7 - Additional Commissioner Co-Operative Society, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.).

¶20

8 - Authorized Officer Adim Jati Sewa, Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Ashulkhar, Block Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

(Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.)

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate. For Respective Respondents : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L., Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

15.07.2026

¶26

This petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2026 passed by respondent No. 6, by which they are directing the petitioners’ society that the shortage of 4839.20 quintal quantity be promptly delivered.

¶27

The above stated quantities of paddy were remaining at the Center till 30.05.2026 as displayed in the paddy procurement portal. By the said notice, 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

¶28

3

¶29

such, the petitioner was directed to give the quantity of paddy which has not been supplied.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that he has already replied to the notice dated 30.05.2026. 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 petitioners’ society.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Considering the limited prayer made in this petition by the petitioners’ society and further considering the fact that the replies have already been filed by the petitioners against the notice dated 30.05.2026, 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.

¶34

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 petitioners. 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.

¶35

4

¶36