ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, BINTA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010112362023 2026:CGHC:45488
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1694 of 2023
1 - Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Binta District Jagdalpur/bastar,
Through -In-Charge Manager Namely Diashwar Padhi S/o Dhaneshwar
Padhi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village - Binta, Police Station - Mardum,
District Bastar/jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Co-Operative Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Secretary, Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Protection Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Through Its
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation
Limited, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - The Collector Bastar, District Bastar/jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
6 - District Marketing Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar/jagdapur
Chhattisgarh.
7 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank (Apex Bank), Through The Managing
Director, Chhattisgarhrajya Sahkari Bank, Maryadit, Head Office Sahkar
Bhawan, Plot No. 74, Sector -24, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
8 - District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur Through Its Chief

2
Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur,
District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
9 - District Food Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar/jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
10 - The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagdalpur, District -
Bastar/jagdapur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate.
For State/Respondent(s) : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Deputy AG.
For Respondent No.7 : Shri Hariom Rai appears on behalf of Shri
Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocates.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
28/10/2026
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Adim Jati Sewa
Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Binta, a Paddy Procurement Centre registered
under Registration No. 785, calling in question the legality and validity
of the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Collector, Bastar,
Jagdalpur, in Revenue Case No. 202207150100030/B-121/2021-22,
whereby liability has been fastened upon the petitioner-Society in
connection with the procurement and storage of paddy during the
Kharif Marketing Season 2021–22.
2. The petitioner-Society contends that, pursuant to the Paddy
Procurement Policy issued by the State of Chhattisgarh on 25.11.2021
for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021–22, it commenced the
procurement of paddy with effect from 01.12.2021. According to the
petitioner, under Clause 16 of the said policy, the paddy procured at
the procurement centres was required to be lifted and transported

3
within the prescribed period. However, owing to the alleged failure of
the respondent authorities to arrange timely lifting and transportation of
the procured paddy, the petitioner-Society was exposed to losses
arising from the reduction in moisture content and consequent loss in
the weight of the stored paddy.
3. The petitioner further contends that the issuance of Transport Orders
(TO) and Delivery Orders (DO), necessary for the transportation of
paddy to collection centres and rice mills, respectively, was within the
control of the respondent authorities. It is the petitioner's case that,
despite the delay attributable to the authorities, the liability arising from
the loss in weight of the paddy was arbitrarily imposed upon the
petitioner-Society.
4. It is further submitted that, in an earlier round of litigation instituted by
the petitioner, being Writ Petition (C) No. 2147 of 2022, this Court, vide
order dated 06.05.2022, directed the Collector, Bastar, to consider and
decide the petitioner's representation within a period of three months
from the date of receipt thereof. However, according to the petitioner,
the Collector, without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing and
without duly considering the submissions advanced by the petitioner,
passed the impugned order dated 16.01.2023, fastening liability upon
the Society.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this
Court, contending that the impugned action is arbitrary, contrary to the

4
applicable Paddy Procurement Policy, and violative of the principles of
natural justice. The petitioner, accordingly, seeks quashing of the
impugned order and appropriate directions for determination of the
actual loss in weight attributable to moisture reduction during storage of
the procured paddy and has prayed for the following reliefs:-
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the records concerning the case of the
petitioner from the possession of the respondents for
its kind perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the order dated 16.01.2023, Annexure P-1
passed by the respondent No. 5 Collector, District
Bastar-Jagdalpur.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to pay the entire
commission of paddy purchase work to the petitioner
@Rs. 32/- per quintal without any kind of deduction
10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondent authorities to give the entire expenses
for procuring and securing the paddy for such a long
time after expiry of the time limit for lifting the entire
paddy i.e. 31.03.2021 and also not pressurize the
petitioner for any kind of compensation.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ directing the respondent no. 3 & 6 to pay
the entire compensation to the State as the dryness
was occurred due to their non-lifting of paddy within
stipulated time.
10.6 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court
may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case, with cost of the petition may also please be
granted to the petitioner.

5
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
authorities failed to ensure timely lifting and transportation of the paddy
in accordance with the Paddy Procurement Policy for the year 2021–
22. It is contended that the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed
by the Collector, Bastar, does not record any finding of
misappropriation of paddy by the petitioner-Society; rather, the
shortage has been attributed to the reduction in moisture content and
consequent loss in weight. Learned counsel further submits that,
despite the petitioner having specifically raised this issue before the
Collector, no proper enquiry was conducted and the liability was
arbitrarily fastened upon the Society without adequately considering its
submissions.
7.
Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier preferred
a writ petition before this Court, registered as W.P.(C) No. 2147 of
2022, seeking appropriate directions to the respondents for extending
the benefits contemplated under Clause 19.7 of the Policy framed by
the State Government and Clause 14 of the Tripartite Agreement. The
said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 06.05.2022,
and this Court disposed of the same with a direction to the petitioner to
submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 5 within a period
of three weeks. Respondent No. 5 was, in turn, directed to consider
and decide the said representation within a period of three months from
the date of its receipt. This Court further granted liberty to the petitioner

6
to approach respondent No. 5 by filing an appropriate application
seeking interim protection in the event of any notice being issued for
taking coercive action against the petitioner Society, pending
consideration of its representation. In compliance with the aforesaid
directions issued by this Court, Respondent No. 5 considered the
grievance raised by the petitioner and called for reports from the
District Marketing Officer, Jagdalpur, the District Food Officer,
Jagdalpur, and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies.
Thereafter, respondent No. 5 passed the impugned order dated
16.01.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner Society was held
liable for the alleged shortage of paddy. While passing the impugned
order, respondent No. 5 observed that, out of the 71 Paddy
Procurement Centres situated in District Bastar, no shortage of paddy
had been detected in 70 centres, whereas the alleged shortage was
found only in the petitioner Society. It was further observed that the
petitioner Society had not procured paddy at its authorised
procurement centre, namely, Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Binta,
but had instead undertaken procurement at Kaknar, which was stated
to be an unauthorised centre not approved by the State Government.
On the basis of these observations, respondent No. 5 attributed the
alleged shortage to the purported fault and negligence of the petitioner
Society and fastened the liability for the same upon it.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents

7
annexed with the petition carefully.
9. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner-Society approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 2147 of 2022, seeking appropriate
directions for extending the benefits contemplated under Clause 19.7
of the Paddy Procurement Policy and Clause 14 of the Tripartite
Agreement. This Court, vide order dated 06.05.2022, disposed of the
writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh
representation before respondent No. 5, the Collector, Bastar, within a
period of three weeks. Respondent No. 5 was, in turn, directed to
consider and decide the representation within three months from the
date of its receipt. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to seek
interim protection in the event of any coercive action being initiated
against it during the pendency of the representation.
10.
Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner submitted its
representation before the Collector, Bastar, raising grievances
regarding the alleged delay in lifting the procured paddy and the
consequential loss in weight attributable to the reduction in moisture
content. The petitioner contended that the responsibility for such loss
could not be fastened upon the Society, particularly when the lifting and
transportation of paddy were dependent upon the issuance of
Transport Orders and Delivery Orders by the respondent authorities.
The representation was considered by the Collector, who called for
reports from the District Marketing Officer, Jagdalpur, the District Food

8
Officer, Jagdalpur, and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
before proceeding to decide the matter.
11. Upon consideration of the material available on record and the
reports obtained from the concerned authorities, the Collector passed
the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 in Revenue Case No.
202207150100030/B-121/2021-22, holding the petitioner-Society liable
for the shortage of paddy detected at its procurement centre. The
Collector observed that, out of 71 paddy procurement centres
functioning in District Bastar, no shortage attributable to drying had
been reported at 70 centres, whereas the shortage in question had
been detected only at the centre associated with the petitioner-Society.
It was further observed that the petitioner had undertaken procurement
at Kaknar, which was stated to be an unauthorised sub-centre, instead
of confining its procurement activities to its authorised centre at Binta.
On the basis of these circumstances, the Collector attributed the
shortage to deficiencies in the management and maintenance of the
procured paddy by the petitioner-Society and fastened liability upon it.
12.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Collector duly
considered the principal contention of the petitioner that the procured
paddy had not been lifted within 72 hours of procurement and that the
resultant reduction in moisture content could not, therefore, be
attributed to any lapse on the part of the Society. The petitioner had
also contended that, owing to the delay in lifting, the stored paddy

9
remained exposed to sunlight, rain and damage caused by rodents and
other animals, resulting in a loss of quantity. The Collector noted that
the last consignment of paddy was lifted from the procurement centre
on 18.04.2022 and that 509.87 quintals of dried paddy had been found
at the centre. The Collector further observed that the petitioner had
failed to explain the circumstances in which the sub-centre at Kaknar
had been operated or to establish that the requisite permission had
been obtained from the competent authority for operating the same.
13. At the same time, the Collector took note of the petitioner's contention
that the transportation of paddy from Kaknar had been delayed owing
to the absence of proper planning for procurement at that location.
However, it was observed that the petitioner-Society could itself have
taken steps to transport the paddy, but no material had been brought
on record to demonstrate that any such efforts had been undertaken by
its management.
14. The Collector also considered the inspection notes recorded by the
Nodal Officer on 07.01.2022 and 21.01.2022, which indicated
deficiencies in the maintenance and management of the procured
paddy and a consequent decline in its moisture content. The inspection
notes further recorded that instructions had been issued to improve the
system of maintenance and preservation of the stored paddy. Taking
note of the fact that no similar shortage had been reported at 70 out of
the 71 procurement centres in the district, the Collector concluded that

10
the shortage at the petitioner's centre was attributable to deficiencies in
its management and maintenance and, accordingly, held the petitioner-
Society responsible for the loss.
15. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court finds that the Collector
examined the circumstances surrounding the alleged shortage of
paddy, including the delay in lifting, the operation of the sub-centre at
Kaknar, the inspection reports and the alleged deficiencies in the
maintenance of the procured paddy. The Collector also considered the
petitioner's contention that the loss had occurred on account of the
delay attributable to the respondent authorities, but ultimately found the
petitioner-Society responsible for the shortage on the basis of the
material available on record.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no
sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash