Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 18.06.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Five separate Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit societies (Baniyagaon, Bafna, Kibaibalenga, Mulmula, Babai districts of Kondagaon) represented by their respective Samiti Managers (Renuka Pal, Lakhan Lal Kaushik, Mohan Lal Baghel, Govind Mandal, Amaru Ram Nage).
  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (Secretary, Co‑Operative Department), Registrar of Co‑Operative Society, Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Co‑Operative Marketing Federation Ltd, District Marketing Officer Kondagaon, Collector (Food Branch) Kondagaon, Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar Co‑Operative Society Kondagaon, Nodal Officer District Co‑Operative Bank Ltd Kondagaon, Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Co‑Operative Bank Ltd (Apex Bank).
  • Core dispute: Notice dated 14‑15 May 2026 directed the societies to deliver the shortage of paddy quantity displayed on the paddy procurement portal for the 2025‑26 season. The portal showed a shortfall of 3,617.36 quintals for WPC No. 2869/2026; other petitions (WPC Nos. 2872, 2886, 2903, 2907) had no specific quantity mentioned but were clubbed together.
  • The notice stipulated that under the 2025‑26 paddy procurement policy, no “dry quantity/dryage” would be allowed, obligating the societies to supply the undisclosed shortfall.
  • Petitioners submitted replies to the notice but alleged that the authorities had not yet decided the matter. They sought a stay on any coercive action pending adjudication.
  • Respondents opposed the petitioners’ submissions.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that the petitions contain limited prayer and that the petitioners have already filed replies.
  • It directed the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps against the societies until the dispute is finally decided.
  • The authorities were instructed to decide the dispute within 45 days from the date they receive a copy of this order, after affording the petitioners a proper hearing.
  • The Court expressly did not pronounce on the merits of the case.
  • The petitions were disposed of with the above directions.

Topics: Paddy Procurement, Cooperative Dispute