01Facts
The petitioner, a 64-year-old farmer, sought to sell 115.20 quintals of paddy during the 2025–26 Kharif procurement season.
¶ 1–3She alleged that, despite receiving Token No. TK58012601252600806 on 8 January 2026, the procurement centre did not accept her paddy and cancelled the token without explanation.
¶ 1–3The State later extended procurement to 5 and 6 February 2026, subject to physical verification.
¶ 1–3The respondents contended that she had failed to follow the procedure and that the procurement period had expired.
¶ 1–302Issues
i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to procure her 115.20 quintals of paddy on the basis of the token issued to her
¶ 1–2ii.Whether the Court could grant that relief after the extended procurement dates had expired
¶ 3–403Law Applied
The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court’s decision rested on the limited procurement period and the terms of the State’s extension: procurement had been extended only to 5 and 6 February 2026, subject to physical verification.
¶ 4The Court held that, once those dates had expired, it could neither grant a further extension nor direct procurement through its writ jurisdiction.
¶ 404Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner had not deposited her paddy during the procurement period, including the two-day extension subject to physical verification.
¶ 3–5Given that the extended dates had expired, the Court concluded that it could not order further procurement or grant another extension under Article 226.
¶ 3–505Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
¶ 5No direction was issued to provide a fresh token or procure the petitioner’s 115.20 quintals of paddy.
¶ 5Original Court PDF
SAVITRI SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
