Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Arbitrable Dispute Resolution Mechanism Exists for Paddy Shortage Claims

The petitioners are Managers/In-charge of Paddy Procurement Centers of Cooperative Societies in Chhattisgarh.

Shortages occurred in the stock (e.g., 550 quintals in the lead case), which the petitioners attribute to natural dryness and moisture evaporation caused by heat and delayed transportation by the respondents.

Despite written requests to expedite lifting, the paddy remained at centers beyond stipulated timelines.

The respondents issued directions to recover the cost of these shortages from the petitioners to achieve "Zero Shortage" and threatened criminal action (FIRs) and coercive financial recovery.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking protection against recovery and parity with rice millers, who are granted a 5% dryness allowance.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to grant relief against paddy shortage recoveries when the governing Policy and Agreement provide specific terms for dryage and dispute resolution.

2. Whether an alternative and efficacious remedy exists for the petitioners to challenge the recovery and adjudicate the cause of the shortage.

Paddy Procurement Policy for Kharif Marketing Session 2025-2026, specifically Clause 15.9, which prohibits weight allowance for dryage at procurement centers, and Clause 16.3, which empowers Societies to arrange their own transportation if MARKFED fails to do so, with expenses being reimbursable.

Tri-party Agreement executed between the parties, specifically Clause 5.6, which permits recovery for shortages from committee commissions or via the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and Clause 13, which provides a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration by the District Collector and subsequent appeal to the Divisional Commissioner.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' claims regarding natural dryage and delayed transportation are factual disputes that fall squarely within the contractual framework of the Paddy Procurement Policy and the subsequent Tri-party Agreement.

The Court noted that under Clause 16.3 of the Policy, the Society bears the responsibility of arranging transportation if the state agencies fail, thereby negating the argument that delayed lifting by respondents automatically absolves the petitioners of shortage liabilities.

Because Clause 15.9 expressly states that no dryage allowance is permitted, any deviation or factual inquiry into whether the shortage was "natural" must be adjudicated through the agreed-upon forum.

The Court found that since Clause 13 of the Agreement provides a specific arbitration machinery (referral to the District Collector), a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for resolving these contractual and factual grievances.

It held that the petitioners must invoke the arbitration clause (Clause 13) of their respective agreements to resolve disputes regarding paddy shortages.

The petitioners were relegated to raise their disputes before the appropriate authority (District Collector).

The Court directed the concerned authorities to consider such disputes in accordance with the law and pass reasoned orders after hearing the parties, without the Court expressing any opinion on the merits of the shortages.

All petitions were disposed of with these directions.