SAVITRI SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010136782026 2026:CGHC:46528
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1838 of 2026
1 - Savitri Sahu Wife Of Late Pitambar Sahu Aged About 64 Years Resident Of
Village Jognipali, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Food And Civil Supplies
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Collector Cum Food Officer, Food Branch Mahasamund District-
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraipali, District
Mahasamund,chhattisgarh
4 - Tahsildar, Saraipali, District Mahasamund,chhattisgarh
5 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Saraipali, Through Secretary Saraipali, District-
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
6 - Chhattisgarh State Coperative Marketing Federation Limited, Through
Secretary, 6th Floor, Tower-C, CBD Sector 21, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
7 - District Marketing Officer/ Nodal Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
8 - Society Manager/president Krishak Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,
Joganipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate
For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, GA

2
For Respondents No.6 & 7 : Ms. Shristi Attal, Advocate
For Respondent No.8 : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
03/11/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the action of the respondents in refusing to procure
115.20 quintals of paddy offered by the petitioner for sale during the
Kharif year 2025-26 despite issuance of a valid token, hence, the
petitioner prays for the following reliefs:
“10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent to permit the
petitioner to sale his remaining paddy of 115.20
quintals in the kharif year 2025-26 and direct to
accept the paddy.
10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authority to
accept the paddy i.e. 115.20 quintal as per the
Token No. TK58012601252600806 which was
granted to the petitioner on 08.01.2026.
10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondents to take decision
over the representations of the petitioner
(Annexure P-5).
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in
favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Token No.
TK58012601252600806 was issued to the petitioner for sale of 115.20
quintals of paddy, the same was not procured by the Paddy Procurement

3
Centre without assigning any reason and the petitioner's token was
cancelled, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to sell her paddy.
Subsequently, the State Government issued an order dated 03.02.2026
extending the paddy procurement dates for 05.02.2026 and 06.02.2026.
Despite the extension, petitioner could not avail the procurement
benefits, as the process involves token generation, scheduling,
verification and delivery, which cannot practically be completed within
two days. Therefore, petitioner prays for a direction issued to the
respondent authorities to issue procurement tokens to her and purchase
her paddy.
3. Learned counsel for the State and other respondents submits that State
Government has extended the dates, i.e., 05.02.2026 & 06.02.2026
subject to the condition of the physical verification of the paddy of the
farmers. However, petitioner herself was negligent in not following the
procedure, consequently, she could not deposit her paddy and it could
not be purchased by the respondent authorities. Now after expiry of the
last date, fixed for purchase of the paddy, no order can be passed for
purchase of the same. Hence, the instant writ petition is not
maintainable.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact
that the date for procurement of paddy was extended up to 05.02.2026
and 06.02.2026, under certain condition, however, the petitioner could
not deposit the paddy, as such no further extension can be granted nor
any order can be passed under the writ petition 226 under the jurisdiction
of the Constitution.

4
5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merits, the same is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Priyanka