Ghasiya Ram Koreti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010269222026

2026:CGHC:30597

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3754 of 2026

¶7

1 - Ghasiya Ram Koreti S/o Late Halal Khor Koreti, Aged About 28 Years, Occupation Computer Operator/ Data Entry Operator Of Paddy Procurement Center Ashulkhar, Lams Ashulkhar R/o Puttarwahi, P.O. Biragaon, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District (North Bastar) Kanker (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Tikeshwar Potai S/o Siya Ram Potai Aged About 26 Years, Occupation Purchase Inchrge Of Paddy Procurement Center Ashulkhar, Lams Ashulkhar R/o Alwarkhurd, P.O. Ashulkhar, Tahsil Bhanupratapur, District (North Bastar) Kanker (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.)

¶14

Digitally signed by SHYNA SHYNA AJAYDate: AJAY 2026.07.2414:57:34 +0530

¶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

... Respondent(s)

¶22

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶23

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Respective : Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate and Mr. Respondents Siddharth Pandey, Advocate

¶24

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

20/07/2026

¶27

By way of this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs :

¶28

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities.

¶29

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the respondent no.6 bank (Annexure P/1), in pursuance to the order passed by respondent no. 7 (Annexure P/2) passed by Additional Commissioner (Cooperative Society), in the interest of justice.

¶30

3

¶31

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.

¶32

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is working as a Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator and petitioner No.2 is a purchase incharge at Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Ashulkhar Lams Ashulkar. On 6.11.2025, Respondent No.1 made a Paddy Purchase Agreement known as “Paddy Purchase Agreement during Kharif Marketing Year 2025-2026” with the agriculturist of the State of Chhattisgarh in support price. The petitioners purchased paddy during the period from 1.11.2025 to 31.03.2026 as per the Paddy Purchase Agreement. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the impugned letter dated 30.05.2026 issued by Respondent No. 6. Vide the said letter, Respondent No.6 informed that, on an enquiry being conducted, an alleged shortage of 4839.20 quintals of paddy amounting to Rs.1,50,01,520/- was detected. In this regard, an FIR has been directed to be lodged against the petitioners and other officers/employees. The said action of respondent No.6 is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, having been issued without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing or following the due process of law. The petitioners had diligently performed their duties. Before issuance of the impugned letter, the petitioners repeatedly moved representations before the concerned authorities requesting the immediate lifting of the paddy. These representations were submitted on 22.12.2025, 24.12.2025, 07.03.2026, 09.03.2026 and 15.03.2026. Thereafter,

¶33

4

¶34

Delivery Orders were issued to the rice millers through the respondent authorities. However, respondents 3 to 5 failed to lift/transport the allocated paddy within the prescribed period. Due to the sole negligence and delay on the part of the respondent authorities, a substantial quantity of paddy suffered damage/shortage. Instead of initiating recovery proceedings against the defaulting millers as per the terms of the Paddy Procurement Agreement published on 6.11.2025, a direction of registration of FIR has been made against the petitioners. Hence, this petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the that the petitioners’ request to transport/lift the paddy from the Paddy Procurement Centre was not considered by the concerned respondent authorities. Since the stock of paddy was stored in the open sky, it suffered natural weight loss and damage due to environmental factors i.e. extreme heat and rain. Thus, he prays to allow the petition.

¶36

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

¶37

5

¶38

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 petition as framed and filed by the petitioners is without merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶39

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

¶40

Admittedly, the reliefs sought by the petitioners 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 petitioners made several efforts and repeatedly made representations 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 Kharif Marketing Session 20252026, there are specific provisions i.e. clause 15.9 and clause 16.3, which address the subject issue and are reproduced below :

¶41

15.9 धा�न उपा�र्ज�न के�न्द्रों� में� सं�ग्रहि�त धा�न के� लि�ए के�ई सं�खत में�त्रा� में�न्य न�� गी!।

¶42

16.3 धा�न के� पारि$व�न ��त& लिनधा��रि$त पारि$व�नकेत�� द्वा�$� पारि$व�न न हिकेय� र्ज�न� पा$ आवश्यकेत�न&सं�$ स्व!के+ त पारि$व�न द$ पा$ हिकेसं! भी! पारि$व�नकेत�� सं� पारि$व�न के� के�य� के$�य� र्ज� संकेत� �.। में�के�फे�ड द्वा�$� पारि$व�न न�� के$�य� र्ज�न� के1 स्थिस्3लित में� स्व!के+ त

¶43

6

¶44

पारि$व�न द$ पा$ संलिमेंलितय� द्वा�$� धा�न के� पारि$व�न के$�य� र्ज�व�। इसं ��त& संलिमेंलित उसं� धा�न भीण्ड�$ण व सं&$क्षा� मेंद अ3व� प्रा�सं�लिगीके व्यय के� मेंद में� प्रादत्त अलिग्रमें $�लि< के� उपाय�गी पारि$व�न द�यके� के� भी&गीत�न ��त& के$ संके�गी! त3� ऐसं� व्यय के1 प्रालितपा�लित� विवपाणन सं�घ द्वा�$� संलिमेंलित के� के1 र्ज�एगी!। संलिमेंलितय� द्वा�$� धा�न पारि$व�न के$�य� र्ज�न� पा$ सं�ग्र�ण के�न्द्रों� में� धा�न भीण्ड�$ण के$न� ��त& उलि@त व्यवस्3� में�के�फे�ड द्वा�$� के1 र्ज�व�।

¶45

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 petitioners 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 concerned Society has entered into an Agreement with the respondents, wherein clause 5.6 of the said Agreement stipulates as under :

¶46

5.6 foi.ku l a ?k }kjk iznk; dh xbZ jkf'k ls miktZu dsUnz ¼lfefr½ }kjk /kku foi.ku l a ?k dks de izkIr gksus ij 'ks"k jkf'k dh olwyh lfefr dks iznk; deh'ku ,o a vU; vuqlk a fxd enks a ls jkf'k dh dVkSrh dh tkosxh A blds mijk a r Hkh olwyh ;ksX; jkf'k 'ks"k jgus ij ftyk foi.ku vf/kdkjh }kjk N-x- jkT; lgdkjh lkslk;Vh vf/kfu;e 1960 ds v a rxZr olwyh dk;Zokgh gsrq l{ke U;k;ky; es a izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkosxk A ”

¶47

7

¶48

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

¶49

13- vkfCkZVªs'ku %&

¶50

bl vuqc a /k dh fdlh Hkh df.Mdk ls l a c a f/kr fookn mRiUu gksus dh fLFkfr es a fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq ftys es a ftyk dysDVj dk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxk tks mHk;i{kks a dks ekU; gksxk A dysDVj }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dh vihy mHk;i{kks a }kjk ftys ds l a Hkkxh; vk;qDr dks dh tk ldsxh A”…

¶51

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 concerned petitioners ought to have invoked arbitration clause in respect of shortage of paddy. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition for the reliefs sought by the petitioners herein.

¶52

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

¶53

8

¶54

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.

¶55

With these observations/directions, the Petition stands disposed of.

¶56

Sd/( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge

¶57

Shyna Ajay

Ghasiya Ram Koreti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghasiya Ram Koreti 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramhenpur Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Purnima Bai Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhiraj Kumar Arya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gousiya Women Self Help Group- Chargarh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Singhdeo Vs State of Chhattisgarh