Writ petition over paddy shortage declined where the agreement provides an effective arbitration remedy.

The petitioner was in charge of the Dullapur Paddy Procurement Centre during the 2021–2022 Kharif season.

Under a tripartite agreement dated 1 December 2021, he procured 33,489.20 quintals of paddy.

After deliveries to millers and the collection centre, 1,013.41 quintals remained at the procurement centre.

The petitioner alleged that heavy rain damaged the stored paddy and that MARKFED failed to arrange its timely lifting despite his requests.

He further alleged that officials threatened to recover the loss from him personally without an inquiry.

He sought an inquiry into responsibility for the damage and action against the responsible persons.

The respondents opposed the petition, relying on the State’s Paddy Procurement Policy for 2025–2026 and the agreement’s transportation and dispute-resolution provisions.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim concerning loss or shortage of paddy allegedly caused by delayed transportation and natural dryage could be determined in writ proceedings in light of the procurement policy.

2. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the agreement’s dispute-resolution mechanism.

Clauses 15.9 and 16.3 of the State’s Paddy Procurement Policy for 2025–2026 provide, respectively, that no general dryage allowance is permissible and that, if MARKFED does not arrange transportation, the societies may arrange it at the applicable rates, with eligible expenses subsequently adjusted or reimbursed by MARKFED.

Clause 5.6 of the agreement provides for recovery of amounts due from the society’s commission and other incidental amounts, with further recovery proceedings contemplated if a balance remains.

Clause 13 provides for resolution of contractual disputes by the District Collector, with an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner.

The Court treated that contractual mechanism as an alternative and efficacious remedy; it cited no statutory provision or judicial precedent.

The Court considered the alleged shortage to arise from natural dryage during the period in which the paddy remained unlifted.

It held that deciding the petitioner’s claim in writ proceedings would require consideration of the policy provisions, which do not generally permit dryage and provide a mechanism for societies to arrange transportation when MARKFED fails to do so.

Because the agreement also provides a mechanism for resolving disputes, the Court concluded that the petitioner should pursue that remedy rather than seek the requested relief through a writ petition.

The Court did not determine the merits of the alleged delay, damage, or personal liability.

It directed the concerned authority, if approached, to consider and decide the dispute in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.