Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 03/08/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Kamalesh Meravi, son of Krishna Ram Meravi, 42‑year‑old Assistant Manager of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Ranveerpur Paddy Procurement Centre (R.N. 1402), Village Ranveerpur, Tehsil S. Lohara, Kabirdham District, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (through Secretary, Department of Co‑Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur) and eight additional officials including the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies; Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited; Collector, Kabirdham; District Marketing Officer, Kabirdham; CEO, District Co‑Operative Central Bank Maryadit Branch, Kabirdham; Deputy Registrar, Co‑Operative Kabirdham Society; District Food Officer, Kabirdham.
  • Core grievance: Shortage of paddy at procurement centres caused by natural dryage/loss of moisture due to delayed lifting and transportation by the respondent authorities, leading to a reduction of 1,636.21 quintals out of a total procurement of 112,667.20 quintals (approximately 1.45%).
  • Petitioners alleged coercive steps by authorities—threats of deduction, recovery, and initiation of criminal proceedings—to recover the shortage.
  • The petitioners relied on the Paddy Procurement Policy for the Kharif Marketing Season 2025‑2026, specifically clauses 15.9 and 16.3, and on a tri‑partite agreement governing procurement, storage, lifting and transportation.
  • Clause 16.3 provides that if MARKFED fails to arrange transportation/lifting, the society may arrange it at prescribed rates and the expenditure will be adjusted by MARKFED; the policy does not grant an automatic dryage benefit.
  • The agreement between the parties contains clause 5.6 (text garbled) and clause 13, which mandates arbitration as the dispute‑resolution mechanism.
  • The Court observed that the dispute arises from obligations under the policy and the agreement, and therefore must be resolved through the arbitration clause rather than by writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
  • The Court referenced a prior judgment (Sanjay Kumar Dharmendra vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No.3158 of 2026, dated 02.07.2026) where similar observations were made (paragraphs 11‑21 of that order).

Final Outcome

  • The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions on merits, directing the petitioners to invoke the arbitration remedy under clause 13 of the agreement.
  • All writ petitions forming part of this batch are disposed of; no order as to costs.
  • The Court expressly left open the substantive issues—dryage loss, liability, legality of recovery, and any claim for exemption—to be decided by the competent arbitration forum.

Topics: Paddy Procurement, Arbitration, Agricultural Policy